Fuelwood Harvest and No Harvest Effects on Forest Composition, Structure, and Diversity of Arasbaran Forests—A Case Study

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

As impacts to forests increase from a wide variety of uses, this study adds important information relevant to the impact of fuelwood harvest in this area of the world.  

The introduction could be improved by providing additional information about the species and size classes harvested for firewood in the area.  This information could help support the hypotheses and the interpretation of the results.  The introduction could also be strengthened by providing basic silvical information on the tree species that grow on these sites (shade tolerance, seeding vs. sprouting, growth rates) to better support the hypotheses and interpretation of the results.  

Abstract - line 19 - "species diversity" does not indicate whether the prediction was for an increase or a decrease, but other indicators in that sentence include whether it is a predicted increase or decrease.  

line 175 - dominate?  (not dominant?)

Line 193 - "density tended to be lower trees in the harvest" - remove the word "trees"?  

Line 251 - "low (1%) harvest areas" should be "low (1%) in harvest areas"?

Line 253 - this is where more information on the silvics of Carpinus would be useful to interpret the results.  Carpinus seems to regenerate quickly after firewood harvest ceases, so I am not sure why there would be a need for conservation.  

Line 254 - gather's should be gatherers?

Line 310 - researches should be research or researchers?

It is difficult for me to determine how "close to nature" practices would be appropriate here and how "close to nature" practices would mimic conditions that increase diversity.  As I noted earlier, the introduction could be improved with more information on the ecology of forests in the area and the disturbance ecology of these forests. That may be difficult since these forests have been impacted by fuelwood harvest for a very long time.  

Author Response

Cover letter for Manuscript ID: forests-1393995

 

Edited Title: Fuelwood harvest and no harvest effects on forest composition, structure, and diversity of Arasbaran forests

 

Dear Editor of Forests;

 

 We deeply appreciate for the reviewers’ comments and suggestions on the manuscript. Our manuscript titled "How does replacement of fuelwood with fossil fuels affect forest composition, structure, and diversity of Arasbaran forests?" with manuscript ID forests-1393995 was edited based on these invaluable comments. In some cases, the whole text was checked and edited for the suggested changes, and, in other cases, a specific change was made as suggested. Our detailed response and revisions are explained below.  In the revised manuscript, we used highlighting to indicate which reviewer indicated the change: yellow color for reviewer # 1 and turquoise color for reviewer # 2, green color for reviewer # 3, red color for reviewer # 4, grey color for reviewer # 5, and pink color for reviewer # 6.

 

We deeply appreciate for the invaluable time and comments from the reviewers.

We look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely yours,

Corresponding authors

 

Reviewer’s comments and authors’ responses are as follows:

 

Reviewer #1

 

• The introduction could be improved by providing additional information about the species and size classes harvested for firewood in the area. This information could help support the hypotheses and the interpretation of the results. The introduction could also be strengthened by providing basic silvical information on the tree species that grow on these sites (shade tolerance, seeding vs. sprouting, growth rates) to better support the hypotheses and interpretation of the results.  

 

• We added description on the three main species of these forests on introduction page 2 line 70-91.

 

• Abstract - line 19 - "species diversity" does not indicate whether the prediction was for an increase or a decrease, but other indicators in that sentence include whether it is a predicted increase or decrease.  
• The sentence was edited on page 1 line 16-17.

 

• line 175 - dominate?  (not dominant?)
• The sentence was edited on page 7 line 218.

 

• Line 193 - "density tended to be lower trees in the harvest" - remove the word "trees"?  
• The sentence was edited on page 8 line 237.

 

• Line 251 - "low (1%) harvest areas" should be "low (1%) in harvest areas"?
• The sentence was edited on page 12 line 300.

 

• Line 253 - this is where more information on the silvics of Carpinus would be useful to interpret the results.  Carpinus seems to regenerate quickly after firewood harvest ceases, so I am not sure why there would be a need for conservation.  
• The sentence was added on page 12 line 302-307.

 

• Line 254 - gather's should be gatherers?
• The sentence was edited one page 12 line 308.

 

• Line 310 - researches should be research or researchers?
• The sentence was edited on page 13 line 374.

 

• It is difficult for me to determine how "close to nature" practices would be appropriate here and how "close to nature" practices would mimic conditions that increase diversity.  As I noted earlier, the introduction could be improved with more information on the ecology of forests in the area and the disturbance ecology of these forests. That may be difficult since these forests have been impacted by fuelwood harvest for a very long time. 
• We expanded the introduction as suggested on page 2 line 70-91 and edited the discussion on page 13 line 384-398 to clarify where close to nature forestry would be appropriate.

 

Reviewer #2

 

• I don’t agree with this sentence” The impacts of the fuelwood harvesting on forest structure and composition are not clear, especially for understudied ecosystems in developing countries”, there is thousands of article.
• The sentence was edited on page 1 line 14 to clarify that these effects are not clear in Arasbaran forests, Iran.

 

• There was some different font.
• The font was edited on page 1 line 26-29,

 

• There was a suggestion in cite a references.
• These references were cited on page 1 line 41.

 

• What about climate change, co2 gas emission?
• The text was edited on page 3 line 107 and 119-120 to indicate that clean energies are another alternative fuel provided in Iran.

 

• Not necessary, please tell us about the national program.
• It was removed on page 4 line 160.

 

• This strategy goes on the opposite of all international strategies! you should explain more, why ? how do you deal with climate change?
• The text was edited on page 3 line 119. In recent years, management plans of the Arasbaran forests emphasize the importance of providing fossil fuels and clean energies such as solar panels to replace fuelwood and meet the needs of villagers.

 

• I do not agree with this statement! It's a bit of a throwback to what happened during the industrial revolutions of the 19th century. If it is temporary it will allow the forest to rest and regenerate, if not in the long term I don't think it is a good idea. it's a bit of a throwback to what happened during the industrial revolutions in the 19th century
• This is true for other parts of the world. But, based on our knowledge, there was no research on this issue in Arasbaran forests. Text edits were made on page 3 line 124.

 

• There was asked to cite a reference.
• A reference was cited on page 3 line 146.

 

• What type of fossil fuel?
• Type was added on page 6 line 160.

 

• Scale? Use suitable map not from Google!
• The map was replaced with another map from Iran and study area of figure 1 page 5.

 

• Define when you first use the abbreviation
• The definition was added on page 5 line 186.

 

• It was asked Why 5 cm and not for? please cite reference
• Two references were cited on page 5 line 185 that they have used the same method.

 

• Choose between 1.3 m or 130 cm.
• The text was changed to 1.3 m on page 5 line 186.

 

• Rephrase! n=3 for both.
• The text was edited on page 5 line 190.

 

• It was suggested to change found to inventoried.
• The text was edited on page 6 line 206.

 

• It was asked to add a reference on the first sentence of discussion.
• A reference was added on page 11 line 279.

 

• Cite their heat value to endorse your statement
• Heat values were added on the discussion section page 12 line 293-296 with citation 2 references.

 

• What about deadwood?
• On page 12 line 311-315 we added two references and describe the importance of dead wood in the modern silviculture.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reviewer # 3

 

• L19, L108 - it is not clear what mean tree size means - height or diameter? Please consider to compare basal area among plots.
• The text was edited on page 1 line 17 and page 3 line 137 for dbh and height tree size.

 

• Table 1 - localization of would be expected in similar site conditions, why the plot with harvest are systematically localized in higher altitudes? It should be explained in the text.
• This explanation was added on page 5 line 188-191 and we discuss this in the discussion. In our study area, the plots with harvest are in higher altitudes, because these villages were not provided with fossil fuels and these villages continue to depend on fuelwood. The village in lower altitudes were provided with fossil fuels.

 

• L142 - mature trees are usually those ready for generative reproduction. Please consider to use another term instead of mature for trees above 5 cm dbh (e.g. grown).
• The terminology was changed on methods (page 5 line 188-191) and throughout the manuscript.

 

• Table 2 - a justification of used set of characteristics is missing.
•                We made revisions to explain the basis for Table 2. L210.

 

• L193, L336 - formulations are unclear.
•                These sentences were edited for clarity L204-205, L355-356.

 

 

Reviewer #4

 

• There is one basic problem with the project design: the plots in the sites are not comparable because altitudes differ substantially (approx. 290 m)! Altitudinal gradient is known as driver for change in species composition, vegetation (tree) height, species diversity etc. Mean air temperature decreases approx. 0.5 °C per each 100 m. All mentioned conclusions are out of reality because design is wrong.
• This is correct but access to the forest area was limited.  We added a statement that recognizes the altitudinal differences in the methods L170-174 and we added a caveat paragraph to the discussion on page 13 line 390-405.

 

• The potential natural vegetation is not described for each plot.
• The potential natural vegetation is the same as the major species observed in the harvest and no harvest areas. This includes the mixed forest type of Quercus macranthera, Carpinus orientalis, and Acer campestre. This was added to L151-152.

 

• The actual vegetation (tree species composition) is not listed for each plot.
• We prepared supplementary materials that list species by plot.

 

• I do not understand combination of parameters DBH<5cm and height<1.3m against DBH>5cm and height>1.3m. Many individuals are of DBH<5cm and height>1.3m - they are omitted?
• This was a typo and was revised for clarity. The threshold for woody species and regeneration was height=1.3. The method section was edited L188-191.

 

• Species as Rosa canina are shrubs, not trees!
• Thank you noting this error; we have added shrub to describe the data and size classes through the manuscript.

 

• It is common that slight disturbance tends to increase of diversity.
• We agree.

 

• Light condition under canopy is basic environmental parameter. It is not described. There is no info about canopy cover for each plot.
• We have inventoried canopy cover for each plot and it was added on page 8 line 248-249 and table 4. Canopy cover in harvest area tended to be lower than no harvest areas.

 

 

Reviewer #5

 

• Abstract, P1 L14-15: The following sentence, “Over three billion people in the world live in rural areas with inadequate supply of energy for cooking, lighting, heating, and other purposes." is probably not directly consistent with the theme of this manuscript, which explains the effects of fuelwood harvesting on forest structure and composition. Rephrase this part slightly to introduce the main message of the study.
• The text was edited and changed on page 1 line 13 with another sentence.

 

• Abstract, P1 L16: “especially for understudied ecosystems in developing countries.” – I would suggest replacing 'ecosystems' with another term, like regions, areas. The term 'ecosystem' is generally used more in the ecological sense, but in this case it seems to have a broader meaning, including social aspects.
• The sentence was edited on page 1 line 14.

 

• Abstract, P1 L19-20: “We expected fuelwood harvesting to decrease stem density, species diversity, decrease mean tree size, and shift composition away from preferred fuelwood species.” – I am not sure that this assumption is correct. You are assuming that timber harvesting, including fuelwood harvesting, has only negative effects on forest diversity and structure. For instance, Muvengwi et al. (2020) found that tree diversity and density were even higher in harvested sites than in unharvested sites. Review the relevant literature and rephrase this part.
• The literature is conflicting on the effects of fuelwood harvesting on forests.  Based on our literature review, our hypotheses were as stated. We edited on page 1 line 16 for clarity. 

 

• Abstract, P1 L23: ‘Carpainus orientalis’ – correct is ‘Carpinus orientalis’
• This species was edited and also other species spellings were checked and corrected as needed throughout the whole text.

 

• Abstract, P1 L23: ‘IVI’ – Include a brief description of this index (importance values index?) so that it can be understood by broader readers.
• A description was added on page 1 line 21 (and described in the method section).

 

• Abstract, P1 L24: “Species richness was higher in harvest” – explain that species richness is only related to the diversity of tree species (not to other plants or even other groups). I suspect you are focusing only on the diversity or richness of tree species.
• The text was changed to the woody species; we also checked the entire manuscript for consistence.

 

• Abstract, P1 L26: “…by shorter and lower density of trees” – is a little confusing. It could be understood as 'shorter... density of trees'. What is meant by this? I assume the term 'shorter' refers to the height of the trees, not their density. That should be clear. You could probably use another explanation, such as 'shorter tree heights' or something like that.
• The text was edited on page 1 line 24.

 

• Abstract, P1 L26: ‘more regeneration’ – probably ‘more intensive regeneration’.
•                The text was edited on page 1 line 25.

 

• Introduction, P1 L35-36: “Over three billion people in the world live in rural areas with inadequate supply of energy for cooking, lighting, heating and other purposes.” – it is completely the same sentence as the first one in Abstract. Change it a little so that it does not repeat itself twice.
• The sentence was not necessary in the abstract and was removed.

 

• Introduction, P2 L66-67: "Rural communities usually harvest Quercus macranthera, Carpinus betulus, and Acer campestre..." - Does this refer to Iran in general or only to the Arasbaran forest region? It is not clear.
• We have added Arasbaran region on page 2 line 67-69.

 

• Introduction, P2 L67-68: "...as a fuelwood sources due to high density of these species in the Arasbaran forest region." - Are these three species very common in the Arasbaran forest region? Or are they dominant in studied forests? Do they have a high growing stock? Add an explanation to avoid any possible misunderstanding.
• This sentence was added on page 2 line 67-69.

 

• Materials and methods, P3 L118-121: “The main species in these forests are oak (Quercus macranthera Fisch. & C.A.Mey. ex Hohen.), hornbeam (Carpinus betulus L.), maple (Acer campestre L.), yew (Taxus baccata L.), wayfaring tree (Viburnum lantana L.), reddish-black berry (Ribes petraeum Wulfen), and walnut (Juglans regia L.).” – Add the full English names of these species (one name for each will be enough): missing Caucasian or Persian Oak, European or Common Hornbeam, Field Maple, Common or European Yew, etc. In this list, tree species are mixed with some common shrub species, such as Viburnum lantana, Ribes petraeum. Do they reach at least up to 5m in height? I would suggest separating the list of dominant tree and shrub species? Are all these tree and shrub species target fuelwood?

 

• The common English names were added on page 3 line 147-151. Some shrubs are tall and harvested by villagers; although some species may be preferred because of their high abundance, all woody species are considered potential fuelwood in these areas (personal observations).

 

• Materials and methods, Table 1, P3 L125: The mean altitude of harvested sites is 2,145 m, that of unharvested sites only 1,856 m. Altitude is an ecological factor that has significant effects on forest structure, composition, diversity, etc. Have you tested the effects of this factor on the studied sites? What about other variables, e.g. slope, exposition?

 

• This is true but access to forest area was limited. We added a statement that recognizes the altitudinal differences in the methods page 4 line 170-174 and we added a caveat paragraph to the discussion page 13 Line 390-405.

 

• Materials and methods, P5 L142-143: “Mature trees were defined as DBH ≥ 5 cm and height ≥ 1.3 m. Regenerating trees were defined DBH < 5 cm and height < 1.3 m.“ - The threshold between mature and young/regenerating trees is only 5 cm DBH and 1.3 m height. Explain how you decided on these thresholds. Relate your decision to some relevant references. By the way, one of the commonly used thresholds between mature and young trees is 10 cm DBH and 5 m height.
• Two references were cited on page 5 line 192 that they have used the same method. The methods were corrected to indicate height as the threshold between mature (now called woody species) and regeneration stems L188-191.

 

• Materials and methods, P5 L145: “The species identification was based on the Iranian flora books …” – add the sources for botanical nomenclature, even if they are only in Iranian. You can add a free English translation of the titles.
• The reference for species identification was added on page 5 line 194.

 

• Materials and methods, P5 L149. “…presented forharvest (n=3)…” – make a space between words
• The text was edited on page 5 line 197.

 

• Results, P5 L163-164: “Results showed that 21 species in total were found across all sites. In the harvest areas, we identified 19 species, while 17 species were found in no harvest areas.” – This is not clear enough. Does this refer only to mature trees, or does it include regrowing/young trees (DBH < 5 cm and height < 1.3 m) too? Do this numbers refer only to tree species, or do they also include shrub species?
• These sentences were edited on page 5 line 188-192. These species were woody species including tree and shrub species; the text was edited throughout.

 

• Results, P5-6 L164-170: Add an explanation that the species listed in this part are mature trees, as shown in Figure 2. See also the previous comment.
• These species were woody species including tree and shrub species; the text was edited throughout.

 

• Results, P6, Figure 2, L171-173: ‘ Mean ± SE relative frequency percent of all mature (DBH ≥ 5 cm and height ≥ 1.3 m) tree species…’ – It is rather confusing. The caption of Figure 2 mentions mature tree species. In my opinion, there are many shrub species among the tree species. This is probably due to the threshold mentioned above. Try to distinguish between two groups of woody species: true tree species and shrub species. Another solution is to use the term 'woody plants' or a similar term. In botany, a tree is a perennial plant with an elongated trunk that bears branches and leaves in most species. Trees are also usually defined by their height, with smaller plants of 0.5 to 5 m (or even 10 m) being called shrubs. There are many different definitions of trees, but there is no very general and simple definition of trees and how they differ from shrubs. However, it would be advisable to make this demarcation even if you use very general criteria. You can also use some national criteria and definitions, probably based on regional ecological conditions.
• Other reviewers pointed this out as well. We edited the terminology throughout.

 

• Results, P6, Figure 2, L171-173 & P7, Figure 3, L185-187 & P10, Figure 6, L230-232: In all three figures there are many woody species identified only at the genus level. Complete the species names or explain why some species cannot be identified. Also check the names of species in an international context. For example, the internationally accepted name for Cerasus aviumis Prunus avium. Many 'sp.' have missing dots.
• All species names were checked and corrected throughout the manuscript.

 

• Discussion, P10 L239-243: Consider your results in light of the many international studies that look at the effects of different harvesting methods/forest management on forest stand structure and diversity in very different areas (such as Europe, North America, and not just Asia). Your results should be presented more in an international context by comparing them with other studies. The results of many similar studies are likely to support your findings.
• Five references were cited from Europe and America about the effect of harvesting on forest composition and species diversity (Europe [34,35], America [36-38]).

 

• Discussion, P10 L239-241: “…two of three of the preferred fuelwood species were higher in importance no harvest than harvest areas” - something missing in this sentence.
• The sentence was edited on page 11 line 292-295. Two of three of the preferred fuelwood species ( orientalis and Q. macranthera) were higher in IVI and density in the no harvest area than harvest areas, and regeneration of all species was higher in harvest than no harvest areas.

 

• Discussion, P11 L264-266: “…the frequency of ruderal and invasive species such as R. canina, Crataegus spp. and Prunus domestica increased with increasing human intervention and in highly degraded ecosystems”– From this sentence, one could conclude that these species are invasive alien species in this region. Could you elaborate on the status of these species (native or non-native to the area under study) to avoid misunderstanding.
• These species were not invasive. We edited on the text for clarity line 328.

 

• References, P13-14: There are a lot of small errors, and this section needs additional review and improvement.
• Based on your comments, all references were checked and edited as needed.

 

Reviewer # 6

 

The manuscript „How does replacement of fuelwood with fossil fuels affect forest composition, structure and diversity of Arasbaran biosphere reserve forest?” reports the results about comparison of tree and forest site parameters in harvested and non harvested forest sites. The main problem of the article, that the main idea of the article, to compare harvested and non harvested forest sites, has been explored many times, nothing new here. In addition, there is no presented primary data of harvest fuelwood sites. It’s hard to understand which tree species were harvested, how many trees were cut and etc., therefore, to do conclusions from such date is incorrect. Authors wrote – “results showed differences in composition, diversity, tree height and density”! It’s not a result, it is from a very long known book knowledge. 

 

Response: Our study focused on the residual forest condition to begin establishing baseline information on Arasbaran forests. We did not have the resources to also measure stumps or measure cut fuelwood.  This is the first study to investigate fuelwood harvesting in the Arasbaran forests.  Future research should focus on more detail to unravel any preferred species or sizes in fuelwood harvest, frequency of cutting, amount/volume cut, etc.  Our results point out interesting potential recovery trends around the villages with access to alternative fuel (no fuelwood harvesting) in addition to potential effects of on-going fuewood harvest.  Our work suggests both the no harvest and harvest areas have opportunities to develop sustainable forest management practices for this understudied and scarce forest type in Iran.

 

• The title of the article is too long.
• We edited the title to be more concise than the original version.

 

• Originality: this is the first question to be asked: the authors need to clearly highlight where and how their work is original in comparison to earlier papers; such an originality is a prerequisite to publication.
• This research topic has not been studied in Arasbaran forests.  We edited the introduction to highlight this more clearly.

 

• On page 5 “Mature trees were defined as DBH> 5 cm and height > 1.3 m.” It’s not logical, because the DBH are measure at 1.3 m. therefore tree can’t be smaller. To mine opinion better use tree age. 
• The threshold for woody species and regeneration was height=1.3. We edited the methods and throughout for clarity.

 

• Conclusions must be improved, because at the moment it’s more like abstract. Conclusion must show what results are the best and what new was found in this study. 
• We edited the conclusion for clarity and highlighted interesting results important to informing management and application of the findings.

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors, 

I found the paper very fluid, well structured with explicit aims.  The main weakness of the paper lies in the discussion section, it is very centered on comparisons with literature data. Discussion should be open to other research aspects : What about climat change? wood residues? negative effects of fuelwood harvesting on soil and biodiversity ? 

I believe that opening discussions on the cited aspects would increase the impact of the paper.
Please consider all the comments and questions in attached file for the revision of your manuscript.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Cover letter for Manuscript ID: forests-1393995

 

Edited Title: Fuelwood harvest and no harvest effects on forest composition, structure, and diversity of Arasbaran forests

 

Dear Editor of Forests;

 

 We deeply appreciate for the reviewers’ comments and suggestions on the manuscript. Our manuscript titled "How does replacement of fuelwood with fossil fuels affect forest composition, structure, and diversity of Arasbaran forests?" with manuscript ID forests-1393995 was edited based on these invaluable comments. In some cases, the whole text was checked and edited for the suggested changes, and, in other cases, a specific change was made as suggested. Our detailed response and revisions are explained below.  In the revised manuscript, we used highlighting to indicate which reviewer indicated the change: yellow color for reviewer # 1 and turquoise color for reviewer # 2, green color for reviewer # 3, red color for reviewer # 4, grey color for reviewer # 5, and pink color for reviewer # 6.

 

We deeply appreciate for the invaluable time and comments from the reviewers.

We look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely yours,

Corresponding authors

 

Reviewer’s comments and authors’ responses are as follows:

 

Reviewer #1

 

• The introduction could be improved by providing additional information about the species and size classes harvested for firewood in the area. This information could help support the hypotheses and the interpretation of the results. The introduction could also be strengthened by providing basic silvical information on the tree species that grow on these sites (shade tolerance, seeding vs. sprouting, growth rates) to better support the hypotheses and interpretation of the results.  

 

• We added description on the three main species of these forests on introduction page 2 line 70-91.

 

• Abstract - line 19 - "species diversity" does not indicate whether the prediction was for an increase or a decrease, but other indicators in that sentence include whether it is a predicted increase or decrease.  
• The sentence was edited on page 1 line 16-17.

 

• line 175 - dominate?  (not dominant?)
• The sentence was edited on page 7 line 218.

 

• Line 193 - "density tended to be lower trees in the harvest" - remove the word "trees"?  
• The sentence was edited on page 8 line 237.

 

• Line 251 - "low (1%) harvest areas" should be "low (1%) in harvest areas"?
• The sentence was edited on page 12 line 300.

 

• Line 253 - this is where more information on the silvics of Carpinus would be useful to interpret the results.  Carpinus seems to regenerate quickly after firewood harvest ceases, so I am not sure why there would be a need for conservation.  
• The sentence was added on page 12 line 302-307.

 

• Line 254 - gather's should be gatherers?
• The sentence was edited one page 12 line 308.

 

• Line 310 - researches should be research or researchers?
• The sentence was edited on page 13 line 374.

 

• It is difficult for me to determine how "close to nature" practices would be appropriate here and how "close to nature" practices would mimic conditions that increase diversity.  As I noted earlier, the introduction could be improved with more information on the ecology of forests in the area and the disturbance ecology of these forests. That may be difficult since these forests have been impacted by fuelwood harvest for a very long time. 
• We expanded the introduction as suggested on page 2 line 70-91 and edited the discussion on page 13 line 384-398 to clarify where close to nature forestry would be appropriate.

 

Reviewer #2

 

• I don’t agree with this sentence” The impacts of the fuelwood harvesting on forest structure and composition are not clear, especially for understudied ecosystems in developing countries”, there is thousands of article.
• The sentence was edited on page 1 line 14 to clarify that these effects are not clear in Arasbaran forests, Iran.

 

• There was some different font.
• The font was edited on page 1 line 26-29,

 

• There was a suggestion in cite a references.
• These references were cited on page 1 line 41.

 

• What about climate change, co2 gas emission?
• The text was edited on page 3 line 107 and 119-120 to indicate that clean energies are another alternative fuel provided in Iran.

 

• Not necessary, please tell us about the national program.
• It was removed on page 4 line 160.

 

• This strategy goes on the opposite of all international strategies! you should explain more, why ? how do you deal with climate change?
• The text was edited on page 3 line 119. In recent years, management plans of the Arasbaran forests emphasize the importance of providing fossil fuels and clean energies such as solar panels to replace fuelwood and meet the needs of villagers.

 

• I do not agree with this statement! It's a bit of a throwback to what happened during the industrial revolutions of the 19th century. If it is temporary it will allow the forest to rest and regenerate, if not in the long term I don't think it is a good idea. it's a bit of a throwback to what happened during the industrial revolutions in the 19th century
• This is true for other parts of the world. But, based on our knowledge, there was no research on this issue in Arasbaran forests. Text edits were made on page 3 line 124.

 

• There was asked to cite a reference.
• A reference was cited on page 3 line 146.

 

• What type of fossil fuel?
• Type was added on page 6 line 160.

 

• Scale? Use suitable map not from Google!
• The map was replaced with another map from Iran and study area of figure 1 page 5.

 

• Define when you first use the abbreviation
• The definition was added on page 5 line 186.

 

• It was asked Why 5 cm and not for? please cite reference
• Two references were cited on page 5 line 185 that they have used the same method.

 

• Choose between 1.3 m or 130 cm.
• The text was changed to 1.3 m on page 5 line 186.

 

• Rephrase! n=3 for both.
• The text was edited on page 5 line 190.

 

• It was suggested to change found to inventoried.
• The text was edited on page 6 line 206.

 

• It was asked to add a reference on the first sentence of discussion.
• A reference was added on page 11 line 279.

 

• Cite their heat value to endorse your statement
• Heat values were added on the discussion section page 12 line 293-296 with citation 2 references.

 

• What about deadwood?
• On page 12 line 311-315 we added two references and describe the importance of dead wood in the modern silviculture.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reviewer # 3

 

• L19, L108 - it is not clear what mean tree size means - height or diameter? Please consider to compare basal area among plots.
• The text was edited on page 1 line 17 and page 3 line 137 for dbh and height tree size.

 

• Table 1 - localization of would be expected in similar site conditions, why the plot with harvest are systematically localized in higher altitudes? It should be explained in the text.
• This explanation was added on page 5 line 188-191 and we discuss this in the discussion. In our study area, the plots with harvest are in higher altitudes, because these villages were not provided with fossil fuels and these villages continue to depend on fuelwood. The village in lower altitudes were provided with fossil fuels.

 

• L142 - mature trees are usually those ready for generative reproduction. Please consider to use another term instead of mature for trees above 5 cm dbh (e.g. grown).
• The terminology was changed on methods (page 5 line 188-191) and throughout the manuscript.

 

• Table 2 - a justification of used set of characteristics is missing.
•                We made revisions to explain the basis for Table 2. L210.

 

• L193, L336 - formulations are unclear.
•                These sentences were edited for clarity L204-205, L355-356.

 

 

Reviewer #4

 

• There is one basic problem with the project design: the plots in the sites are not comparable because altitudes differ substantially (approx. 290 m)! Altitudinal gradient is known as driver for change in species composition, vegetation (tree) height, species diversity etc. Mean air temperature decreases approx. 0.5 °C per each 100 m. All mentioned conclusions are out of reality because design is wrong.
• This is correct but access to the forest area was limited.  We added a statement that recognizes the altitudinal differences in the methods L170-174 and we added a caveat paragraph to the discussion on page 13 line 390-405.

 

• The potential natural vegetation is not described for each plot.
• The potential natural vegetation is the same as the major species observed in the harvest and no harvest areas. This includes the mixed forest type of Quercus macranthera, Carpinus orientalis, and Acer campestre. This was added to L151-152.

 

• The actual vegetation (tree species composition) is not listed for each plot.
• We prepared supplementary materials that list species by plot.

 

• I do not understand combination of parameters DBH<5cm and height<1.3m against DBH>5cm and height>1.3m. Many individuals are of DBH<5cm and height>1.3m - they are omitted?
• This was a typo and was revised for clarity. The threshold for woody species and regeneration was height=1.3. The method section was edited L188-191.

 

• Species as Rosa canina are shrubs, not trees!
• Thank you noting this error; we have added shrub to describe the data and size classes through the manuscript.

 

• It is common that slight disturbance tends to increase of diversity.
• We agree.

 

• Light condition under canopy is basic environmental parameter. It is not described. There is no info about canopy cover for each plot.
• We have inventoried canopy cover for each plot and it was added on page 8 line 248-249 and table 4. Canopy cover in harvest area tended to be lower than no harvest areas.

 

 

Reviewer #5

 

• Abstract, P1 L14-15: The following sentence, “Over three billion people in the world live in rural areas with inadequate supply of energy for cooking, lighting, heating, and other purposes." is probably not directly consistent with the theme of this manuscript, which explains the effects of fuelwood harvesting on forest structure and composition. Rephrase this part slightly to introduce the main message of the study.
• The text was edited and changed on page 1 line 13 with another sentence.

 

• Abstract, P1 L16: “especially for understudied ecosystems in developing countries.” – I would suggest replacing 'ecosystems' with another term, like regions, areas. The term 'ecosystem' is generally used more in the ecological sense, but in this case it seems to have a broader meaning, including social aspects.
• The sentence was edited on page 1 line 14.

 

• Abstract, P1 L19-20: “We expected fuelwood harvesting to decrease stem density, species diversity, decrease mean tree size, and shift composition away from preferred fuelwood species.” – I am not sure that this assumption is correct. You are assuming that timber harvesting, including fuelwood harvesting, has only negative effects on forest diversity and structure. For instance, Muvengwi et al. (2020) found that tree diversity and density were even higher in harvested sites than in unharvested sites. Review the relevant literature and rephrase this part.
• The literature is conflicting on the effects of fuelwood harvesting on forests.  Based on our literature review, our hypotheses were as stated. We edited on page 1 line 16 for clarity. 

 

• Abstract, P1 L23: ‘Carpainus orientalis’ – correct is ‘Carpinus orientalis’
• This species was edited and also other species spellings were checked and corrected as needed throughout the whole text.

 

• Abstract, P1 L23: ‘IVI’ – Include a brief description of this index (importance values index?) so that it can be understood by broader readers.
• A description was added on page 1 line 21 (and described in the method section).

 

• Abstract, P1 L24: “Species richness was higher in harvest” – explain that species richness is only related to the diversity of tree species (not to other plants or even other groups). I suspect you are focusing only on the diversity or richness of tree species.
• The text was changed to the woody species; we also checked the entire manuscript for consistence.

 

• Abstract, P1 L26: “…by shorter and lower density of trees” – is a little confusing. It could be understood as 'shorter... density of trees'. What is meant by this? I assume the term 'shorter' refers to the height of the trees, not their density. That should be clear. You could probably use another explanation, such as 'shorter tree heights' or something like that.
• The text was edited on page 1 line 24.

 

• Abstract, P1 L26: ‘more regeneration’ – probably ‘more intensive regeneration’.
•                The text was edited on page 1 line 25.

 

• Introduction, P1 L35-36: “Over three billion people in the world live in rural areas with inadequate supply of energy for cooking, lighting, heating and other purposes.” – it is completely the same sentence as the first one in Abstract. Change it a little so that it does not repeat itself twice.
• The sentence was not necessary in the abstract and was removed.

 

• Introduction, P2 L66-67: "Rural communities usually harvest Quercus macranthera, Carpinus betulus, and Acer campestre..." - Does this refer to Iran in general or only to the Arasbaran forest region? It is not clear.
• We have added Arasbaran region on page 2 line 67-69.

 

• Introduction, P2 L67-68: "...as a fuelwood sources due to high density of these species in the Arasbaran forest region." - Are these three species very common in the Arasbaran forest region? Or are they dominant in studied forests? Do they have a high growing stock? Add an explanation to avoid any possible misunderstanding.
• This sentence was added on page 2 line 67-69.

 

• Materials and methods, P3 L118-121: “The main species in these forests are oak (Quercus macranthera Fisch. & C.A.Mey. ex Hohen.), hornbeam (Carpinus betulus L.), maple (Acer campestre L.), yew (Taxus baccata L.), wayfaring tree (Viburnum lantana L.), reddish-black berry (Ribes petraeum Wulfen), and walnut (Juglans regia L.).” – Add the full English names of these species (one name for each will be enough): missing Caucasian or Persian Oak, European or Common Hornbeam, Field Maple, Common or European Yew, etc. In this list, tree species are mixed with some common shrub species, such as Viburnum lantana, Ribes petraeum. Do they reach at least up to 5m in height? I would suggest separating the list of dominant tree and shrub species? Are all these tree and shrub species target fuelwood?

 

• The common English names were added on page 3 line 147-151. Some shrubs are tall and harvested by villagers; although some species may be preferred because of their high abundance, all woody species are considered potential fuelwood in these areas (personal observations).

 

• Materials and methods, Table 1, P3 L125: The mean altitude of harvested sites is 2,145 m, that of unharvested sites only 1,856 m. Altitude is an ecological factor that has significant effects on forest structure, composition, diversity, etc. Have you tested the effects of this factor on the studied sites? What about other variables, e.g. slope, exposition?

 

• This is true but access to forest area was limited. We added a statement that recognizes the altitudinal differences in the methods page 4 line 170-174 and we added a caveat paragraph to the discussion page 13 Line 390-405.

 

• Materials and methods, P5 L142-143: “Mature trees were defined as DBH ≥ 5 cm and height ≥ 1.3 m. Regenerating trees were defined DBH < 5 cm and height < 1.3 m.“ - The threshold between mature and young/regenerating trees is only 5 cm DBH and 1.3 m height. Explain how you decided on these thresholds. Relate your decision to some relevant references. By the way, one of the commonly used thresholds between mature and young trees is 10 cm DBH and 5 m height.
• Two references were cited on page 5 line 192 that they have used the same method. The methods were corrected to indicate height as the threshold between mature (now called woody species) and regeneration stems L188-191.

 

• Materials and methods, P5 L145: “The species identification was based on the Iranian flora books …” – add the sources for botanical nomenclature, even if they are only in Iranian. You can add a free English translation of the titles.
• The reference for species identification was added on page 5 line 194.

 

• Materials and methods, P5 L149. “…presented forharvest (n=3)…” – make a space between words
• The text was edited on page 5 line 197.

 

• Results, P5 L163-164: “Results showed that 21 species in total were found across all sites. In the harvest areas, we identified 19 species, while 17 species were found in no harvest areas.” – This is not clear enough. Does this refer only to mature trees, or does it include regrowing/young trees (DBH < 5 cm and height < 1.3 m) too? Do this numbers refer only to tree species, or do they also include shrub species?
• These sentences were edited on page 5 line 188-192. These species were woody species including tree and shrub species; the text was edited throughout.

 

• Results, P5-6 L164-170: Add an explanation that the species listed in this part are mature trees, as shown in Figure 2. See also the previous comment.
• These species were woody species including tree and shrub species; the text was edited throughout.

 

• Results, P6, Figure 2, L171-173: ‘ Mean ± SE relative frequency percent of all mature (DBH ≥ 5 cm and height ≥ 1.3 m) tree species…’ – It is rather confusing. The caption of Figure 2 mentions mature tree species. In my opinion, there are many shrub species among the tree species. This is probably due to the threshold mentioned above. Try to distinguish between two groups of woody species: true tree species and shrub species. Another solution is to use the term 'woody plants' or a similar term. In botany, a tree is a perennial plant with an elongated trunk that bears branches and leaves in most species. Trees are also usually defined by their height, with smaller plants of 0.5 to 5 m (or even 10 m) being called shrubs. There are many different definitions of trees, but there is no very general and simple definition of trees and how they differ from shrubs. However, it would be advisable to make this demarcation even if you use very general criteria. You can also use some national criteria and definitions, probably based on regional ecological conditions.
• Other reviewers pointed this out as well. We edited the terminology throughout.

 

• Results, P6, Figure 2, L171-173 & P7, Figure 3, L185-187 & P10, Figure 6, L230-232: In all three figures there are many woody species identified only at the genus level. Complete the species names or explain why some species cannot be identified. Also check the names of species in an international context. For example, the internationally accepted name for Cerasus aviumis Prunus avium. Many 'sp.' have missing dots.
• All species names were checked and corrected throughout the manuscript.

 

• Discussion, P10 L239-243: Consider your results in light of the many international studies that look at the effects of different harvesting methods/forest management on forest stand structure and diversity in very different areas (such as Europe, North America, and not just Asia). Your results should be presented more in an international context by comparing them with other studies. The results of many similar studies are likely to support your findings.
• Five references were cited from Europe and America about the effect of harvesting on forest composition and species diversity (Europe [34,35], America [36-38]).

 

• Discussion, P10 L239-241: “…two of three of the preferred fuelwood species were higher in importance no harvest than harvest areas” - something missing in this sentence.
• The sentence was edited on page 11 line 292-295. Two of three of the preferred fuelwood species ( orientalis and Q. macranthera) were higher in IVI and density in the no harvest area than harvest areas, and regeneration of all species was higher in harvest than no harvest areas.

 

• Discussion, P11 L264-266: “…the frequency of ruderal and invasive species such as R. canina, Crataegus spp. and Prunus domestica increased with increasing human intervention and in highly degraded ecosystems”– From this sentence, one could conclude that these species are invasive alien species in this region. Could you elaborate on the status of these species (native or non-native to the area under study) to avoid misunderstanding.
• These species were not invasive. We edited on the text for clarity line 328.

 

• References, P13-14: There are a lot of small errors, and this section needs additional review and improvement.
• Based on your comments, all references were checked and edited as needed.

 

Reviewer # 6

 

The manuscript „How does replacement of fuelwood with fossil fuels affect forest composition, structure and diversity of Arasbaran biosphere reserve forest?” reports the results about comparison of tree and forest site parameters in harvested and non harvested forest sites. The main problem of the article, that the main idea of the article, to compare harvested and non harvested forest sites, has been explored many times, nothing new here. In addition, there is no presented primary data of harvest fuelwood sites. It’s hard to understand which tree species were harvested, how many trees were cut and etc., therefore, to do conclusions from such date is incorrect. Authors wrote – “results showed differences in composition, diversity, tree height and density”! It’s not a result, it is from a very long known book knowledge. 

 

Response: Our study focused on the residual forest condition to begin establishing baseline information on Arasbaran forests. We did not have the resources to also measure stumps or measure cut fuelwood.  This is the first study to investigate fuelwood harvesting in the Arasbaran forests.  Future research should focus on more detail to unravel any preferred species or sizes in fuelwood harvest, frequency of cutting, amount/volume cut, etc.  Our results point out interesting potential recovery trends around the villages with access to alternative fuel (no fuelwood harvesting) in addition to potential effects of on-going fuewood harvest.  Our work suggests both the no harvest and harvest areas have opportunities to develop sustainable forest management practices for this understudied and scarce forest type in Iran.

 

• The title of the article is too long.
• We edited the title to be more concise than the original version.

 

• Originality: this is the first question to be asked: the authors need to clearly highlight where and how their work is original in comparison to earlier papers; such an originality is a prerequisite to publication.
• This research topic has not been studied in Arasbaran forests.  We edited the introduction to highlight this more clearly.

 

• On page 5 “Mature trees were defined as DBH> 5 cm and height > 1.3 m.” It’s not logical, because the DBH are measure at 1.3 m. therefore tree can’t be smaller. To mine opinion better use tree age. 
• The threshold for woody species and regeneration was height=1.3. We edited the methods and throughout for clarity.

 

• Conclusions must be improved, because at the moment it’s more like abstract. Conclusion must show what results are the best and what new was found in this study. 
• We edited the conclusion for clarity and highlighted interesting results important to informing management and application of the findings.

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

Thanks for this paper on the impact of fuelwood harvest on forest structures.

In general, the paper provides expected results on the impact of implemeted and ceased fuelwood harvest. Please check your manuscript thoroughly as some formulations are unclear and require grmmar corrections. Please find here below few specific suggestions from the review.

L19, L108 - it is not clear what mean tree size means - height or diameter? Please consider to compare basal area among plots.

Table 1 - localization of would be expected in similar site conditions, why the plot with harvest are systematically localized in higher altitudes? It should be explained in the text.

L142 - mature trees are usully those ready for generative reproduction. Please consider to use another term instear of mature for trees above 5 cm dbh (e.g. grown).

Table 2 - a justification of used set of charateristics is missing.

L193, L336 - formulations are uncllear.

 

 

 

Author Response

Cover letter for Manuscript ID: forests-1393995

 

Edited Title: Fuelwood harvest and no harvest effects on forest composition, structure, and diversity of Arasbaran forests

 

Dear Editor of Forests;

 

 We deeply appreciate for the reviewers’ comments and suggestions on the manuscript. Our manuscript titled "How does replacement of fuelwood with fossil fuels affect forest composition, structure, and diversity of Arasbaran forests?" with manuscript ID forests-1393995 was edited based on these invaluable comments. In some cases, the whole text was checked and edited for the suggested changes, and, in other cases, a specific change was made as suggested. Our detailed response and revisions are explained below.  In the revised manuscript, we used highlighting to indicate which reviewer indicated the change: yellow color for reviewer # 1 and turquoise color for reviewer # 2, green color for reviewer # 3, red color for reviewer # 4, grey color for reviewer # 5, and pink color for reviewer # 6.

 

We deeply appreciate for the invaluable time and comments from the reviewers.

We look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely yours,

Corresponding authors

 

Reviewer’s comments and authors’ responses are as follows:

 

Reviewer #1

 

• The introduction could be improved by providing additional information about the species and size classes harvested for firewood in the area. This information could help support the hypotheses and the interpretation of the results. The introduction could also be strengthened by providing basic silvical information on the tree species that grow on these sites (shade tolerance, seeding vs. sprouting, growth rates) to better support the hypotheses and interpretation of the results.  

 

• We added description on the three main species of these forests on introduction page 2 line 70-91.

 

• Abstract - line 19 - "species diversity" does not indicate whether the prediction was for an increase or a decrease, but other indicators in that sentence include whether it is a predicted increase or decrease.  
• The sentence was edited on page 1 line 16-17.

 

• line 175 - dominate?  (not dominant?)
• The sentence was edited on page 7 line 218.

 

• Line 193 - "density tended to be lower trees in the harvest" - remove the word "trees"?  
• The sentence was edited on page 8 line 237.

 

• Line 251 - "low (1%) harvest areas" should be "low (1%) in harvest areas"?
• The sentence was edited on page 12 line 300.

 

• Line 253 - this is where more information on the silvics of Carpinus would be useful to interpret the results.  Carpinus seems to regenerate quickly after firewood harvest ceases, so I am not sure why there would be a need for conservation.  
• The sentence was added on page 12 line 302-307.

 

• Line 254 - gather's should be gatherers?
• The sentence was edited one page 12 line 308.

 

• Line 310 - researches should be research or researchers?
• The sentence was edited on page 13 line 374.

 

• It is difficult for me to determine how "close to nature" practices would be appropriate here and how "close to nature" practices would mimic conditions that increase diversity.  As I noted earlier, the introduction could be improved with more information on the ecology of forests in the area and the disturbance ecology of these forests. That may be difficult since these forests have been impacted by fuelwood harvest for a very long time. 
• We expanded the introduction as suggested on page 2 line 70-91 and edited the discussion on page 13 line 384-398 to clarify where close to nature forestry would be appropriate.

 

Reviewer #2

 

• I don’t agree with this sentence” The impacts of the fuelwood harvesting on forest structure and composition are not clear, especially for understudied ecosystems in developing countries”, there is thousands of article.
• The sentence was edited on page 1 line 14 to clarify that these effects are not clear in Arasbaran forests, Iran.

 

• There was some different font.
• The font was edited on page 1 line 26-29,

 

• There was a suggestion in cite a references.
• These references were cited on page 1 line 41.

 

• What about climate change, co2 gas emission?
• The text was edited on page 3 line 107 and 119-120 to indicate that clean energies are another alternative fuel provided in Iran.

 

• Not necessary, please tell us about the national program.
• It was removed on page 4 line 160.

 

• This strategy goes on the opposite of all international strategies! you should explain more, why ? how do you deal with climate change?
• The text was edited on page 3 line 119. In recent years, management plans of the Arasbaran forests emphasize the importance of providing fossil fuels and clean energies such as solar panels to replace fuelwood and meet the needs of villagers.

 

• I do not agree with this statement! It's a bit of a throwback to what happened during the industrial revolutions of the 19th century. If it is temporary it will allow the forest to rest and regenerate, if not in the long term I don't think it is a good idea. it's a bit of a throwback to what happened during the industrial revolutions in the 19th century
• This is true for other parts of the world. But, based on our knowledge, there was no research on this issue in Arasbaran forests. Text edits were made on page 3 line 124.

 

• There was asked to cite a reference.
• A reference was cited on page 3 line 146.

 

• What type of fossil fuel?
• Type was added on page 6 line 160.

 

• Scale? Use suitable map not from Google!
• The map was replaced with another map from Iran and study area of figure 1 page 5.

 

• Define when you first use the abbreviation
• The definition was added on page 5 line 186.

 

• It was asked Why 5 cm and not for? please cite reference
• Two references were cited on page 5 line 185 that they have used the same method.

 

• Choose between 1.3 m or 130 cm.
• The text was changed to 1.3 m on page 5 line 186.

 

• Rephrase! n=3 for both.
• The text was edited on page 5 line 190.

 

• It was suggested to change found to inventoried.
• The text was edited on page 6 line 206.

 

• It was asked to add a reference on the first sentence of discussion.
• A reference was added on page 11 line 279.

 

• Cite their heat value to endorse your statement
• Heat values were added on the discussion section page 12 line 293-296 with citation 2 references.

 

• What about deadwood?
• On page 12 line 311-315 we added two references and describe the importance of dead wood in the modern silviculture.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reviewer # 3

 

• L19, L108 - it is not clear what mean tree size means - height or diameter? Please consider to compare basal area among plots.
• The text was edited on page 1 line 17 and page 3 line 137 for dbh and height tree size.

 

• Table 1 - localization of would be expected in similar site conditions, why the plot with harvest are systematically localized in higher altitudes? It should be explained in the text.
• This explanation was added on page 5 line 188-191 and we discuss this in the discussion. In our study area, the plots with harvest are in higher altitudes, because these villages were not provided with fossil fuels and these villages continue to depend on fuelwood. The village in lower altitudes were provided with fossil fuels.

 

• L142 - mature trees are usually those ready for generative reproduction. Please consider to use another term instead of mature for trees above 5 cm dbh (e.g. grown).
• The terminology was changed on methods (page 5 line 188-191) and throughout the manuscript.

 

• Table 2 - a justification of used set of characteristics is missing.
•                We made revisions to explain the basis for Table 2. L210.

 

• L193, L336 - formulations are unclear.
•                These sentences were edited for clarity L204-205, L355-356.

 

 

Reviewer #4

 

• There is one basic problem with the project design: the plots in the sites are not comparable because altitudes differ substantially (approx. 290 m)! Altitudinal gradient is known as driver for change in species composition, vegetation (tree) height, species diversity etc. Mean air temperature decreases approx. 0.5 °C per each 100 m. All mentioned conclusions are out of reality because design is wrong.
• This is correct but access to the forest area was limited.  We added a statement that recognizes the altitudinal differences in the methods L170-174 and we added a caveat paragraph to the discussion on page 13 line 390-405.

 

• The potential natural vegetation is not described for each plot.
• The potential natural vegetation is the same as the major species observed in the harvest and no harvest areas. This includes the mixed forest type of Quercus macranthera, Carpinus orientalis, and Acer campestre. This was added to L151-152.

 

• The actual vegetation (tree species composition) is not listed for each plot.
• We prepared supplementary materials that list species by plot.

 

• I do not understand combination of parameters DBH<5cm and height<1.3m against DBH>5cm and height>1.3m. Many individuals are of DBH<5cm and height>1.3m - they are omitted?
• This was a typo and was revised for clarity. The threshold for woody species and regeneration was height=1.3. The method section was edited L188-191.

 

• Species as Rosa canina are shrubs, not trees!
• Thank you noting this error; we have added shrub to describe the data and size classes through the manuscript.

 

• It is common that slight disturbance tends to increase of diversity.
• We agree.

 

• Light condition under canopy is basic environmental parameter. It is not described. There is no info about canopy cover for each plot.
• We have inventoried canopy cover for each plot and it was added on page 8 line 248-249 and table 4. Canopy cover in harvest area tended to be lower than no harvest areas.

 

 

Reviewer #5

 

• Abstract, P1 L14-15: The following sentence, “Over three billion people in the world live in rural areas with inadequate supply of energy for cooking, lighting, heating, and other purposes." is probably not directly consistent with the theme of this manuscript, which explains the effects of fuelwood harvesting on forest structure and composition. Rephrase this part slightly to introduce the main message of the study.
• The text was edited and changed on page 1 line 13 with another sentence.

 

• Abstract, P1 L16: “especially for understudied ecosystems in developing countries.” – I would suggest replacing 'ecosystems' with another term, like regions, areas. The term 'ecosystem' is generally used more in the ecological sense, but in this case it seems to have a broader meaning, including social aspects.
• The sentence was edited on page 1 line 14.

 

• Abstract, P1 L19-20: “We expected fuelwood harvesting to decrease stem density, species diversity, decrease mean tree size, and shift composition away from preferred fuelwood species.” – I am not sure that this assumption is correct. You are assuming that timber harvesting, including fuelwood harvesting, has only negative effects on forest diversity and structure. For instance, Muvengwi et al. (2020) found that tree diversity and density were even higher in harvested sites than in unharvested sites. Review the relevant literature and rephrase this part.
• The literature is conflicting on the effects of fuelwood harvesting on forests.  Based on our literature review, our hypotheses were as stated. We edited on page 1 line 16 for clarity. 

 

• Abstract, P1 L23: ‘Carpainus orientalis’ – correct is ‘Carpinus orientalis’
• This species was edited and also other species spellings were checked and corrected as needed throughout the whole text.

 

• Abstract, P1 L23: ‘IVI’ – Include a brief description of this index (importance values index?) so that it can be understood by broader readers.
• A description was added on page 1 line 21 (and described in the method section).

 

• Abstract, P1 L24: “Species richness was higher in harvest” – explain that species richness is only related to the diversity of tree species (not to other plants or even other groups). I suspect you are focusing only on the diversity or richness of tree species.
• The text was changed to the woody species; we also checked the entire manuscript for consistence.

 

• Abstract, P1 L26: “…by shorter and lower density of trees” – is a little confusing. It could be understood as 'shorter... density of trees'. What is meant by this? I assume the term 'shorter' refers to the height of the trees, not their density. That should be clear. You could probably use another explanation, such as 'shorter tree heights' or something like that.
• The text was edited on page 1 line 24.

 

• Abstract, P1 L26: ‘more regeneration’ – probably ‘more intensive regeneration’.
•                The text was edited on page 1 line 25.

 

• Introduction, P1 L35-36: “Over three billion people in the world live in rural areas with inadequate supply of energy for cooking, lighting, heating and other purposes.” – it is completely the same sentence as the first one in Abstract. Change it a little so that it does not repeat itself twice.
• The sentence was not necessary in the abstract and was removed.

 

• Introduction, P2 L66-67: "Rural communities usually harvest Quercus macranthera, Carpinus betulus, and Acer campestre..." - Does this refer to Iran in general or only to the Arasbaran forest region? It is not clear.
• We have added Arasbaran region on page 2 line 67-69.

 

• Introduction, P2 L67-68: "...as a fuelwood sources due to high density of these species in the Arasbaran forest region." - Are these three species very common in the Arasbaran forest region? Or are they dominant in studied forests? Do they have a high growing stock? Add an explanation to avoid any possible misunderstanding.
• This sentence was added on page 2 line 67-69.

 

• Materials and methods, P3 L118-121: “The main species in these forests are oak (Quercus macranthera Fisch. & C.A.Mey. ex Hohen.), hornbeam (Carpinus betulus L.), maple (Acer campestre L.), yew (Taxus baccata L.), wayfaring tree (Viburnum lantana L.), reddish-black berry (Ribes petraeum Wulfen), and walnut (Juglans regia L.).” – Add the full English names of these species (one name for each will be enough): missing Caucasian or Persian Oak, European or Common Hornbeam, Field Maple, Common or European Yew, etc. In this list, tree species are mixed with some common shrub species, such as Viburnum lantana, Ribes petraeum. Do they reach at least up to 5m in height? I would suggest separating the list of dominant tree and shrub species? Are all these tree and shrub species target fuelwood?

 

• The common English names were added on page 3 line 147-151. Some shrubs are tall and harvested by villagers; although some species may be preferred because of their high abundance, all woody species are considered potential fuelwood in these areas (personal observations).

 

• Materials and methods, Table 1, P3 L125: The mean altitude of harvested sites is 2,145 m, that of unharvested sites only 1,856 m. Altitude is an ecological factor that has significant effects on forest structure, composition, diversity, etc. Have you tested the effects of this factor on the studied sites? What about other variables, e.g. slope, exposition?

 

• This is true but access to forest area was limited. We added a statement that recognizes the altitudinal differences in the methods page 4 line 170-174 and we added a caveat paragraph to the discussion page 13 Line 390-405.

 

• Materials and methods, P5 L142-143: “Mature trees were defined as DBH ≥ 5 cm and height ≥ 1.3 m. Regenerating trees were defined DBH < 5 cm and height < 1.3 m.“ - The threshold between mature and young/regenerating trees is only 5 cm DBH and 1.3 m height. Explain how you decided on these thresholds. Relate your decision to some relevant references. By the way, one of the commonly used thresholds between mature and young trees is 10 cm DBH and 5 m height.
• Two references were cited on page 5 line 192 that they have used the same method. The methods were corrected to indicate height as the threshold between mature (now called woody species) and regeneration stems L188-191.

 

• Materials and methods, P5 L145: “The species identification was based on the Iranian flora books …” – add the sources for botanical nomenclature, even if they are only in Iranian. You can add a free English translation of the titles.
• The reference for species identification was added on page 5 line 194.

 

• Materials and methods, P5 L149. “…presented forharvest (n=3)…” – make a space between words
• The text was edited on page 5 line 197.

 

• Results, P5 L163-164: “Results showed that 21 species in total were found across all sites. In the harvest areas, we identified 19 species, while 17 species were found in no harvest areas.” – This is not clear enough. Does this refer only to mature trees, or does it include regrowing/young trees (DBH < 5 cm and height < 1.3 m) too? Do this numbers refer only to tree species, or do they also include shrub species?
• These sentences were edited on page 5 line 188-192. These species were woody species including tree and shrub species; the text was edited throughout.

 

• Results, P5-6 L164-170: Add an explanation that the species listed in this part are mature trees, as shown in Figure 2. See also the previous comment.
• These species were woody species including tree and shrub species; the text was edited throughout.

 

• Results, P6, Figure 2, L171-173: ‘ Mean ± SE relative frequency percent of all mature (DBH ≥ 5 cm and height ≥ 1.3 m) tree species…’ – It is rather confusing. The caption of Figure 2 mentions mature tree species. In my opinion, there are many shrub species among the tree species. This is probably due to the threshold mentioned above. Try to distinguish between two groups of woody species: true tree species and shrub species. Another solution is to use the term 'woody plants' or a similar term. In botany, a tree is a perennial plant with an elongated trunk that bears branches and leaves in most species. Trees are also usually defined by their height, with smaller plants of 0.5 to 5 m (or even 10 m) being called shrubs. There are many different definitions of trees, but there is no very general and simple definition of trees and how they differ from shrubs. However, it would be advisable to make this demarcation even if you use very general criteria. You can also use some national criteria and definitions, probably based on regional ecological conditions.
• Other reviewers pointed this out as well. We edited the terminology throughout.

 

• Results, P6, Figure 2, L171-173 & P7, Figure 3, L185-187 & P10, Figure 6, L230-232: In all three figures there are many woody species identified only at the genus level. Complete the species names or explain why some species cannot be identified. Also check the names of species in an international context. For example, the internationally accepted name for Cerasus aviumis Prunus avium. Many 'sp.' have missing dots.
• All species names were checked and corrected throughout the manuscript.

 

• Discussion, P10 L239-243: Consider your results in light of the many international studies that look at the effects of different harvesting methods/forest management on forest stand structure and diversity in very different areas (such as Europe, North America, and not just Asia). Your results should be presented more in an international context by comparing them with other studies. The results of many similar studies are likely to support your findings.
• Five references were cited from Europe and America about the effect of harvesting on forest composition and species diversity (Europe [34,35], America [36-38]).

 

• Discussion, P10 L239-241: “…two of three of the preferred fuelwood species were higher in importance no harvest than harvest areas” - something missing in this sentence.
• The sentence was edited on page 11 line 292-295. Two of three of the preferred fuelwood species ( orientalis and Q. macranthera) were higher in IVI and density in the no harvest area than harvest areas, and regeneration of all species was higher in harvest than no harvest areas.

 

• Discussion, P11 L264-266: “…the frequency of ruderal and invasive species such as R. canina, Crataegus spp. and Prunus domestica increased with increasing human intervention and in highly degraded ecosystems”– From this sentence, one could conclude that these species are invasive alien species in this region. Could you elaborate on the status of these species (native or non-native to the area under study) to avoid misunderstanding.
• These species were not invasive. We edited on the text for clarity line 328.

 

• References, P13-14: There are a lot of small errors, and this section needs additional review and improvement.
• Based on your comments, all references were checked and edited as needed.

 

Reviewer # 6

 

The manuscript „How does replacement of fuelwood with fossil fuels affect forest composition, structure and diversity of Arasbaran biosphere reserve forest?” reports the results about comparison of tree and forest site parameters in harvested and non harvested forest sites. The main problem of the article, that the main idea of the article, to compare harvested and non harvested forest sites, has been explored many times, nothing new here. In addition, there is no presented primary data of harvest fuelwood sites. It’s hard to understand which tree species were harvested, how many trees were cut and etc., therefore, to do conclusions from such date is incorrect. Authors wrote – “results showed differences in composition, diversity, tree height and density”! It’s not a result, it is from a very long known book knowledge. 

 

Response: Our study focused on the residual forest condition to begin establishing baseline information on Arasbaran forests. We did not have the resources to also measure stumps or measure cut fuelwood.  This is the first study to investigate fuelwood harvesting in the Arasbaran forests.  Future research should focus on more detail to unravel any preferred species or sizes in fuelwood harvest, frequency of cutting, amount/volume cut, etc.  Our results point out interesting potential recovery trends around the villages with access to alternative fuel (no fuelwood harvesting) in addition to potential effects of on-going fuewood harvest.  Our work suggests both the no harvest and harvest areas have opportunities to develop sustainable forest management practices for this understudied and scarce forest type in Iran.

 

• The title of the article is too long.
• We edited the title to be more concise than the original version.

 

• Originality: this is the first question to be asked: the authors need to clearly highlight where and how their work is original in comparison to earlier papers; such an originality is a prerequisite to publication.
• This research topic has not been studied in Arasbaran forests.  We edited the introduction to highlight this more clearly.

 

• On page 5 “Mature trees were defined as DBH> 5 cm and height > 1.3 m.” It’s not logical, because the DBH are measure at 1.3 m. therefore tree can’t be smaller. To mine opinion better use tree age. 
• The threshold for woody species and regeneration was height=1.3. We edited the methods and throughout for clarity.

 

• Conclusions must be improved, because at the moment it’s more like abstract. Conclusion must show what results are the best and what new was found in this study. 
• We edited the conclusion for clarity and highlighted interesting results important to informing management and application of the findings.

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

There is one basic problem with the project design: the plots in the sites are not comparable because altitudes differ substantially (approx. 290 m)! Altitudinal gradient is known as driver for change in species composition, vegetation (tree) height, species diversity etc. Mean air temperature decreases approx. 0.5 °C per each 100 m. All mentioned conclusions are out of reality because design is wrong.

The potential natural vegetation is not described for each plot.

The actual vegetation (tree species composition) is not listed for each plot.

I do not understand combination of parameters DBH<5cm and height<1.3m against DBH>5cm and height>1.3m. Many individuals are of DBH<5cm and height>1.3m - they are omitted?

Species as Rosa canina are shrubs, not trees!

It is common that slight disturbance tends to increase of diversity.

Light condition under canopy is basic environmental parameter. It is not described. There is no info about canopy cover for each plot.

Author Response

Cover letter for Manuscript ID: forests-1393995

 

Edited Title: Fuelwood harvest and no harvest effects on forest composition, structure, and diversity of Arasbaran forests

 

Dear Editor of Forests;

 

 We deeply appreciate for the reviewers’ comments and suggestions on the manuscript. Our manuscript titled "How does replacement of fuelwood with fossil fuels affect forest composition, structure, and diversity of Arasbaran forests?" with manuscript ID forests-1393995 was edited based on these invaluable comments. In some cases, the whole text was checked and edited for the suggested changes, and, in other cases, a specific change was made as suggested. Our detailed response and revisions are explained below.  In the revised manuscript, we used highlighting to indicate which reviewer indicated the change: yellow color for reviewer # 1 and turquoise color for reviewer # 2, green color for reviewer # 3, red color for reviewer # 4, grey color for reviewer # 5, and pink color for reviewer # 6.

 

We deeply appreciate for the invaluable time and comments from the reviewers.

We look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely yours,

Corresponding authors

 

Reviewer’s comments and authors’ responses are as follows:

 

Reviewer #1

 

• The introduction could be improved by providing additional information about the species and size classes harvested for firewood in the area. This information could help support the hypotheses and the interpretation of the results. The introduction could also be strengthened by providing basic silvical information on the tree species that grow on these sites (shade tolerance, seeding vs. sprouting, growth rates) to better support the hypotheses and interpretation of the results.  

 

• We added description on the three main species of these forests on introduction page 2 line 70-91.

 

• Abstract - line 19 - "species diversity" does not indicate whether the prediction was for an increase or a decrease, but other indicators in that sentence include whether it is a predicted increase or decrease.  
• The sentence was edited on page 1 line 16-17.

 

• line 175 - dominate?  (not dominant?)
• The sentence was edited on page 7 line 218.

 

• Line 193 - "density tended to be lower trees in the harvest" - remove the word "trees"?  
• The sentence was edited on page 8 line 237.

 

• Line 251 - "low (1%) harvest areas" should be "low (1%) in harvest areas"?
• The sentence was edited on page 12 line 300.

 

• Line 253 - this is where more information on the silvics of Carpinus would be useful to interpret the results.  Carpinus seems to regenerate quickly after firewood harvest ceases, so I am not sure why there would be a need for conservation.  
• The sentence was added on page 12 line 302-307.

 

• Line 254 - gather's should be gatherers?
• The sentence was edited one page 12 line 308.

 

• Line 310 - researches should be research or researchers?
• The sentence was edited on page 13 line 374.

 

• It is difficult for me to determine how "close to nature" practices would be appropriate here and how "close to nature" practices would mimic conditions that increase diversity.  As I noted earlier, the introduction could be improved with more information on the ecology of forests in the area and the disturbance ecology of these forests. That may be difficult since these forests have been impacted by fuelwood harvest for a very long time. 
• We expanded the introduction as suggested on page 2 line 70-91 and edited the discussion on page 13 line 384-398 to clarify where close to nature forestry would be appropriate.

 

Reviewer #2

 

• I don’t agree with this sentence” The impacts of the fuelwood harvesting on forest structure and composition are not clear, especially for understudied ecosystems in developing countries”, there is thousands of article.
• The sentence was edited on page 1 line 14 to clarify that these effects are not clear in Arasbaran forests, Iran.

 

• There was some different font.
• The font was edited on page 1 line 26-29,

 

• There was a suggestion in cite a references.
• These references were cited on page 1 line 41.

 

• What about climate change, co2 gas emission?
• The text was edited on page 3 line 107 and 119-120 to indicate that clean energies are another alternative fuel provided in Iran.

 

• Not necessary, please tell us about the national program.
• It was removed on page 4 line 160.

 

• This strategy goes on the opposite of all international strategies! you should explain more, why ? how do you deal with climate change?
• The text was edited on page 3 line 119. In recent years, management plans of the Arasbaran forests emphasize the importance of providing fossil fuels and clean energies such as solar panels to replace fuelwood and meet the needs of villagers.

 

• I do not agree with this statement! It's a bit of a throwback to what happened during the industrial revolutions of the 19th century. If it is temporary it will allow the forest to rest and regenerate, if not in the long term I don't think it is a good idea. it's a bit of a throwback to what happened during the industrial revolutions in the 19th century
• This is true for other parts of the world. But, based on our knowledge, there was no research on this issue in Arasbaran forests. Text edits were made on page 3 line 124.

 

• There was asked to cite a reference.
• A reference was cited on page 3 line 146.

 

• What type of fossil fuel?
• Type was added on page 6 line 160.

 

• Scale? Use suitable map not from Google!
• The map was replaced with another map from Iran and study area of figure 1 page 5.

 

• Define when you first use the abbreviation
• The definition was added on page 5 line 186.

 

• It was asked Why 5 cm and not for? please cite reference
• Two references were cited on page 5 line 185 that they have used the same method.

 

• Choose between 1.3 m or 130 cm.
• The text was changed to 1.3 m on page 5 line 186.

 

• Rephrase! n=3 for both.
• The text was edited on page 5 line 190.

 

• It was suggested to change found to inventoried.
• The text was edited on page 6 line 206.

 

• It was asked to add a reference on the first sentence of discussion.
• A reference was added on page 11 line 279.

 

• Cite their heat value to endorse your statement
• Heat values were added on the discussion section page 12 line 293-296 with citation 2 references.

 

• What about deadwood?
• On page 12 line 311-315 we added two references and describe the importance of dead wood in the modern silviculture.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reviewer # 3

 

• L19, L108 - it is not clear what mean tree size means - height or diameter? Please consider to compare basal area among plots.
• The text was edited on page 1 line 17 and page 3 line 137 for dbh and height tree size.

 

• Table 1 - localization of would be expected in similar site conditions, why the plot with harvest are systematically localized in higher altitudes? It should be explained in the text.
• This explanation was added on page 5 line 188-191 and we discuss this in the discussion. In our study area, the plots with harvest are in higher altitudes, because these villages were not provided with fossil fuels and these villages continue to depend on fuelwood. The village in lower altitudes were provided with fossil fuels.

 

• L142 - mature trees are usually those ready for generative reproduction. Please consider to use another term instead of mature for trees above 5 cm dbh (e.g. grown).
• The terminology was changed on methods (page 5 line 188-191) and throughout the manuscript.

 

• Table 2 - a justification of used set of characteristics is missing.
•                We made revisions to explain the basis for Table 2. L210.

 

• L193, L336 - formulations are unclear.
•                These sentences were edited for clarity L204-205, L355-356.

 

 

Reviewer #4

 

• There is one basic problem with the project design: the plots in the sites are not comparable because altitudes differ substantially (approx. 290 m)! Altitudinal gradient is known as driver for change in species composition, vegetation (tree) height, species diversity etc. Mean air temperature decreases approx. 0.5 °C per each 100 m. All mentioned conclusions are out of reality because design is wrong.
• This is correct but access to the forest area was limited.  We added a statement that recognizes the altitudinal differences in the methods L170-174 and we added a caveat paragraph to the discussion on page 13 line 390-405.

 

• The potential natural vegetation is not described for each plot.
• The potential natural vegetation is the same as the major species observed in the harvest and no harvest areas. This includes the mixed forest type of Quercus macranthera, Carpinus orientalis, and Acer campestre. This was added to L151-152.

 

• The actual vegetation (tree species composition) is not listed for each plot.
• We prepared supplementary materials that list species by plot.

 

• I do not understand combination of parameters DBH<5cm and height<1.3m against DBH>5cm and height>1.3m. Many individuals are of DBH<5cm and height>1.3m - they are omitted?
• This was a typo and was revised for clarity. The threshold for woody species and regeneration was height=1.3. The method section was edited L188-191.

 

• Species as Rosa canina are shrubs, not trees!
• Thank you noting this error; we have added shrub to describe the data and size classes through the manuscript.

 

• It is common that slight disturbance tends to increase of diversity.
• We agree.

 

• Light condition under canopy is basic environmental parameter. It is not described. There is no info about canopy cover for each plot.
• We have inventoried canopy cover for each plot and it was added on page 8 line 248-249 and table 4. Canopy cover in harvest area tended to be lower than no harvest areas.

 

 

Reviewer #5

 

• Abstract, P1 L14-15: The following sentence, “Over three billion people in the world live in rural areas with inadequate supply of energy for cooking, lighting, heating, and other purposes." is probably not directly consistent with the theme of this manuscript, which explains the effects of fuelwood harvesting on forest structure and composition. Rephrase this part slightly to introduce the main message of the study.
• The text was edited and changed on page 1 line 13 with another sentence.

 

• Abstract, P1 L16: “especially for understudied ecosystems in developing countries.” – I would suggest replacing 'ecosystems' with another term, like regions, areas. The term 'ecosystem' is generally used more in the ecological sense, but in this case it seems to have a broader meaning, including social aspects.
• The sentence was edited on page 1 line 14.

 

• Abstract, P1 L19-20: “We expected fuelwood harvesting to decrease stem density, species diversity, decrease mean tree size, and shift composition away from preferred fuelwood species.” – I am not sure that this assumption is correct. You are assuming that timber harvesting, including fuelwood harvesting, has only negative effects on forest diversity and structure. For instance, Muvengwi et al. (2020) found that tree diversity and density were even higher in harvested sites than in unharvested sites. Review the relevant literature and rephrase this part.
• The literature is conflicting on the effects of fuelwood harvesting on forests.  Based on our literature review, our hypotheses were as stated. We edited on page 1 line 16 for clarity. 

 

• Abstract, P1 L23: ‘Carpainus orientalis’ – correct is ‘Carpinus orientalis’
• This species was edited and also other species spellings were checked and corrected as needed throughout the whole text.

 

• Abstract, P1 L23: ‘IVI’ – Include a brief description of this index (importance values index?) so that it can be understood by broader readers.
• A description was added on page 1 line 21 (and described in the method section).

 

• Abstract, P1 L24: “Species richness was higher in harvest” – explain that species richness is only related to the diversity of tree species (not to other plants or even other groups). I suspect you are focusing only on the diversity or richness of tree species.
• The text was changed to the woody species; we also checked the entire manuscript for consistence.

 

• Abstract, P1 L26: “…by shorter and lower density of trees” – is a little confusing. It could be understood as 'shorter... density of trees'. What is meant by this? I assume the term 'shorter' refers to the height of the trees, not their density. That should be clear. You could probably use another explanation, such as 'shorter tree heights' or something like that.
• The text was edited on page 1 line 24.

 

• Abstract, P1 L26: ‘more regeneration’ – probably ‘more intensive regeneration’.
•                The text was edited on page 1 line 25.

 

• Introduction, P1 L35-36: “Over three billion people in the world live in rural areas with inadequate supply of energy for cooking, lighting, heating and other purposes.” – it is completely the same sentence as the first one in Abstract. Change it a little so that it does not repeat itself twice.
• The sentence was not necessary in the abstract and was removed.

 

• Introduction, P2 L66-67: "Rural communities usually harvest Quercus macranthera, Carpinus betulus, and Acer campestre..." - Does this refer to Iran in general or only to the Arasbaran forest region? It is not clear.
• We have added Arasbaran region on page 2 line 67-69.

 

• Introduction, P2 L67-68: "...as a fuelwood sources due to high density of these species in the Arasbaran forest region." - Are these three species very common in the Arasbaran forest region? Or are they dominant in studied forests? Do they have a high growing stock? Add an explanation to avoid any possible misunderstanding.
• This sentence was added on page 2 line 67-69.

 

• Materials and methods, P3 L118-121: “The main species in these forests are oak (Quercus macranthera Fisch. & C.A.Mey. ex Hohen.), hornbeam (Carpinus betulus L.), maple (Acer campestre L.), yew (Taxus baccata L.), wayfaring tree (Viburnum lantana L.), reddish-black berry (Ribes petraeum Wulfen), and walnut (Juglans regia L.).” – Add the full English names of these species (one name for each will be enough): missing Caucasian or Persian Oak, European or Common Hornbeam, Field Maple, Common or European Yew, etc. In this list, tree species are mixed with some common shrub species, such as Viburnum lantana, Ribes petraeum. Do they reach at least up to 5m in height? I would suggest separating the list of dominant tree and shrub species? Are all these tree and shrub species target fuelwood?

 

• The common English names were added on page 3 line 147-151. Some shrubs are tall and harvested by villagers; although some species may be preferred because of their high abundance, all woody species are considered potential fuelwood in these areas (personal observations).

 

• Materials and methods, Table 1, P3 L125: The mean altitude of harvested sites is 2,145 m, that of unharvested sites only 1,856 m. Altitude is an ecological factor that has significant effects on forest structure, composition, diversity, etc. Have you tested the effects of this factor on the studied sites? What about other variables, e.g. slope, exposition?

 

• This is true but access to forest area was limited. We added a statement that recognizes the altitudinal differences in the methods page 4 line 170-174 and we added a caveat paragraph to the discussion page 13 Line 390-405.

 

• Materials and methods, P5 L142-143: “Mature trees were defined as DBH ≥ 5 cm and height ≥ 1.3 m. Regenerating trees were defined DBH < 5 cm and height < 1.3 m.“ - The threshold between mature and young/regenerating trees is only 5 cm DBH and 1.3 m height. Explain how you decided on these thresholds. Relate your decision to some relevant references. By the way, one of the commonly used thresholds between mature and young trees is 10 cm DBH and 5 m height.
• Two references were cited on page 5 line 192 that they have used the same method. The methods were corrected to indicate height as the threshold between mature (now called woody species) and regeneration stems L188-191.

 

• Materials and methods, P5 L145: “The species identification was based on the Iranian flora books …” – add the sources for botanical nomenclature, even if they are only in Iranian. You can add a free English translation of the titles.
• The reference for species identification was added on page 5 line 194.

 

• Materials and methods, P5 L149. “…presented forharvest (n=3)…” – make a space between words
• The text was edited on page 5 line 197.

 

• Results, P5 L163-164: “Results showed that 21 species in total were found across all sites. In the harvest areas, we identified 19 species, while 17 species were found in no harvest areas.” – This is not clear enough. Does this refer only to mature trees, or does it include regrowing/young trees (DBH < 5 cm and height < 1.3 m) too? Do this numbers refer only to tree species, or do they also include shrub species?
• These sentences were edited on page 5 line 188-192. These species were woody species including tree and shrub species; the text was edited throughout.

 

• Results, P5-6 L164-170: Add an explanation that the species listed in this part are mature trees, as shown in Figure 2. See also the previous comment.
• These species were woody species including tree and shrub species; the text was edited throughout.

 

• Results, P6, Figure 2, L171-173: ‘ Mean ± SE relative frequency percent of all mature (DBH ≥ 5 cm and height ≥ 1.3 m) tree species…’ – It is rather confusing. The caption of Figure 2 mentions mature tree species. In my opinion, there are many shrub species among the tree species. This is probably due to the threshold mentioned above. Try to distinguish between two groups of woody species: true tree species and shrub species. Another solution is to use the term 'woody plants' or a similar term. In botany, a tree is a perennial plant with an elongated trunk that bears branches and leaves in most species. Trees are also usually defined by their height, with smaller plants of 0.5 to 5 m (or even 10 m) being called shrubs. There are many different definitions of trees, but there is no very general and simple definition of trees and how they differ from shrubs. However, it would be advisable to make this demarcation even if you use very general criteria. You can also use some national criteria and definitions, probably based on regional ecological conditions.
• Other reviewers pointed this out as well. We edited the terminology throughout.

 

• Results, P6, Figure 2, L171-173 & P7, Figure 3, L185-187 & P10, Figure 6, L230-232: In all three figures there are many woody species identified only at the genus level. Complete the species names or explain why some species cannot be identified. Also check the names of species in an international context. For example, the internationally accepted name for Cerasus aviumis Prunus avium. Many 'sp.' have missing dots.
• All species names were checked and corrected throughout the manuscript.

 

• Discussion, P10 L239-243: Consider your results in light of the many international studies that look at the effects of different harvesting methods/forest management on forest stand structure and diversity in very different areas (such as Europe, North America, and not just Asia). Your results should be presented more in an international context by comparing them with other studies. The results of many similar studies are likely to support your findings.
• Five references were cited from Europe and America about the effect of harvesting on forest composition and species diversity (Europe [34,35], America [36-38]).

 

• Discussion, P10 L239-241: “…two of three of the preferred fuelwood species were higher in importance no harvest than harvest areas” - something missing in this sentence.
• The sentence was edited on page 11 line 292-295. Two of three of the preferred fuelwood species ( orientalis and Q. macranthera) were higher in IVI and density in the no harvest area than harvest areas, and regeneration of all species was higher in harvest than no harvest areas.

 

• Discussion, P11 L264-266: “…the frequency of ruderal and invasive species such as R. canina, Crataegus spp. and Prunus domestica increased with increasing human intervention and in highly degraded ecosystems”– From this sentence, one could conclude that these species are invasive alien species in this region. Could you elaborate on the status of these species (native or non-native to the area under study) to avoid misunderstanding.
• These species were not invasive. We edited on the text for clarity line 328.

 

• References, P13-14: There are a lot of small errors, and this section needs additional review and improvement.
• Based on your comments, all references were checked and edited as needed.

 

Reviewer # 6

 

The manuscript „How does replacement of fuelwood with fossil fuels affect forest composition, structure and diversity of Arasbaran biosphere reserve forest?” reports the results about comparison of tree and forest site parameters in harvested and non harvested forest sites. The main problem of the article, that the main idea of the article, to compare harvested and non harvested forest sites, has been explored many times, nothing new here. In addition, there is no presented primary data of harvest fuelwood sites. It’s hard to understand which tree species were harvested, how many trees were cut and etc., therefore, to do conclusions from such date is incorrect. Authors wrote – “results showed differences in composition, diversity, tree height and density”! It’s not a result, it is from a very long known book knowledge. 

 

Response: Our study focused on the residual forest condition to begin establishing baseline information on Arasbaran forests. We did not have the resources to also measure stumps or measure cut fuelwood.  This is the first study to investigate fuelwood harvesting in the Arasbaran forests.  Future research should focus on more detail to unravel any preferred species or sizes in fuelwood harvest, frequency of cutting, amount/volume cut, etc.  Our results point out interesting potential recovery trends around the villages with access to alternative fuel (no fuelwood harvesting) in addition to potential effects of on-going fuewood harvest.  Our work suggests both the no harvest and harvest areas have opportunities to develop sustainable forest management practices for this understudied and scarce forest type in Iran.

 

• The title of the article is too long.
• We edited the title to be more concise than the original version.

 

• Originality: this is the first question to be asked: the authors need to clearly highlight where and how their work is original in comparison to earlier papers; such an originality is a prerequisite to publication.
• This research topic has not been studied in Arasbaran forests.  We edited the introduction to highlight this more clearly.

 

• On page 5 “Mature trees were defined as DBH> 5 cm and height > 1.3 m.” It’s not logical, because the DBH are measure at 1.3 m. therefore tree can’t be smaller. To mine opinion better use tree age. 
• The threshold for woody species and regeneration was height=1.3. We edited the methods and throughout for clarity.

 

• Conclusions must be improved, because at the moment it’s more like abstract. Conclusion must show what results are the best and what new was found in this study. 
• We edited the conclusion for clarity and highlighted interesting results important to informing management and application of the findings.

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 5 Report

The paper titled "How does replacement of fuelwood with fossil fuels affect forest composition, structure, and diversity of Arasbaran biosphere reserve forests?" is an interesting study dealing with the effects of fuelwood harvesting on forest structure and composition, with special attention on understudied areas in developing countries. This study compared tree density, species diversity, forest composition and tree regeneration status of trees/woody species in sites with and without fuelwood harvesting in the Arasbaran Biosphere Reserve in northwest Iran.

The paper is well written and informative. However, there are some shortcomings in this study that need to be addressed more and some issues should be reconsidered in such a way that the message of this study becomes stronger. The entire paper should be slightly revised and improved to give the readers very clear conclusions and a consistent message.

The study was done correctly but is probably a bit too descriptive and too local with few novelties for the international scientific audience. This paper should be better worded and revised to appeal to a broader international scientific community.

 

Some general comments to be addressed as follows:

In Abstract, there are some messages of this study and some terms that are not clear enough. This part should be improved to be clearer and to not provide some confused messages to readers.

In the Introduction chapter, some inconsistencies have been noticed. Some parts of this chapter should be rephrased.

In Materials and Methods, few important methodological issues are not clear enough. Some additional detailed explanations of sampling design and methods need to be included.

Following the changes in Materials and Methods, the Results chapter should also be slightly revised. Some important changes are needed in this section. There are some figures that need improvement.

The discussion should consider some other international studies that address similar issues in other forest types. Discuss all your findings in terms of similar studies worldwide. In this part, you need to put your results much more in an international context so that your study is scientifically interesting not only to readers from your region, but to a much wider audience.

 

Some minor comments to be addressed as follows:

Abstract, P1 L14-15: The following sentence, “Over three billion people in the world live in rural areas with inadequate supply of energy for cooking, lighting, heating, and other purposes." is probably not directly consistent with the theme of this manuscript, which explains the effects of fuelwood harvesting on forest structure and composition. Rephrase this part slightly to introduce the main message of the study.

Abstract, P1 L16: “especially for understudied ecosystems in developing countries.” – I would suggest replacing 'ecosystems' with another term, like regions, areas. The term 'ecosystem' is generally used more in the ecological sense, but in this case it seems to have a broader meaning, including social aspects.

Abstract, P1 L19-20: “We expected fuelwood harvesting to decrease stem density, species diversity, decrease mean tree size, and shift composition away from preferred fuelwood species.” – I am not sure that this assumption is correct. You are assuming that timber harvesting, including fuelwood harvesting, has only negative effects on forest diversity and structure. For instance, Muvengwi et al. (2020) found that tree diversity and density were even higher in harvested sites than in unharvested sites. Review the relevant literature and rephrase this part.

Abstract, P1 L23: ‘Carpainus orientalis’ – correct is ‘Carpinus orientalis’

Abstract, P1 L23: ‘IVI’ – Include a brief description of this index (importance values index?) so that it can be understood by broader readers.

Abstract, P1 L24: “Species richness was higher in harvest” – explain that species richness is only related to the diversity of tree species (not to other plants or even other groups). I suspect you are focusing only on the diversity or richness of tree species.

Abstract, P1 L26: “…by shorter and lower density of trees” – is a little confusing. It could be understood as 'shorter... density of trees'. What is meant by this? I assume the term 'shorter' refers to the height of the trees, not their density. That should be clear. You could probably use another explanation, such as 'shorter tree heights' or something like that.

Abstract, P1 L26: ‘more regeneration’ – probably ‘more intensive regeneration’.

 

Introduction, P1 L35-36: “Over three billion people in the world live in rural areas with inadequate supply of energy for cooking, lighting, heating and other purposes.” – it is completely the same sentence as the first one in Abstract. Change it a little so that it does not repeat itself twice.

Introduction, P2 L66-67: "Rural communities usually harvest Quercus macranthera, Carpinus betulus, and Acer campestre..." - Does this refer to Iran in general or only to the Arasbaran forest region? It is not clear.

Introduction, P2 L67-68: "...as a fuelwood sources due to high density of these species in the Arasbaran forest region." - Are these three species very common in the Arasbaran forest region? Or are they dominant in studied forests? Do they have a high growing stock? Add an explanation to avoid any possible misunderstanding.

 

Materials and methods, P3 L118-121: “The main species in these forests are oak (Quercus macranthera Fisch. & C.A.Mey. ex Hohen.), hornbeam (Carpinus betulus L.), maple (Acer campestre L.), yew (Taxus baccata L.), wayfaring tree (Viburnum lantana L.), reddish-black berry (Ribes petraeum Wulfen), and walnut (Juglans regia L.).” – Add the full English names of these species (one name for each will be enough): missing Caucasian or Persian Oak, European or Common Hornbeam, Field Maple, Common or European Yew, etc. In this list, tree species are mixed with some common shrub species, such as Viburnum lantana, Ribes petraeum. Do they reach at least up to 5m in height? I would suggest separating the list of dominant tree and shrub species? Are all these tree and shrub species target fuelwood?

Materials and methods, Table 1, P3 L125: The mean altitude of harvested sites is 2,145 m, that of unharvested sites only 1,856 m. Altitude is an ecological factor that has significant effects on forest structure, composition, diversity, etc. Have you tested the effects of this factor on the studied sites? What about other variables, e.g. slope, exposition?

Materials and methods, P5 L142-143: “Mature trees were defined as DBH ≥ 5 cm and height ≥ 1.3 m. Regenerating trees were defined DBH < 5 cm and height < 1.3 m. “ - The threshold between mature and young/regenerating trees is only 5 cm DBH and 1.3 m height. Explain how you decided on these thresholds. Relate your decision to some relevant references. By the way, one of the commonly used thresholds between mature and young trees is 10 cm DBH and 5 m height.

Materials and methods, P5 L145: “The species identification was based on the Iranian flora books …” – add the sources for botanical nomenclature, even if they are only in Iranian. You can add a free English translation of the titles.

Materials and methods, P5 L149. “…presented forharvest (n=3)…” – make a space between words

 

Results, P5 L163-164: “Results showed that 21 species in total were found across all sites. In the harvest areas, we identified 19 species, while 17 species were found in no harvest areas.” – This is not clear enough. Does this refer only to mature trees, or does it include regrowing/young trees (DBH < 5 cm and height < 1.3 m) too? Do this numbers refer only to tree species, or do they also include shrub species?

Results, P5-6 L164-170: Add an explanation that the species listed in this part are mature trees, as shown in Figure 2. See also the previous comment.

Results, P6 L166: ‘Smilax sp’ – missing dot

Results, P6, Figure 2, L171-173: ‘ Mean ± SE relative frequency percent of all mature (DBH ≥ 5 cm and height ≥ 1.3 m) tree species…’ – It is rather confusing. The caption of Figure 2 mentions mature tree species. In my opinion, there are many shrub species among the tree species. This is probably due to the threshold mentioned above. Try to distinguish between two groups of woody species: true tree species and shrub species. Another solution is to use the term 'woody plants' or a similar term. In botany, a tree is a perennial plant with an elongated trunk that bears branches and leaves in most species. Trees are also usually defined by their height, with smaller plants of 0.5 to 5 m (or even 10 m) being called shrubs. There are many different definitions of trees, but there is no very general and simple definition of trees and how they differ from shrubs. However, it would be advisable to make this demarcation even if you use very general criteria. You can also use some national criteria and definitions, probably based on regional ecological conditions.

Results, P6, Figure 2, L171-173 & P7, Figure 3, L185-187 & P10, Figure 6, L230-232: In all three figures there are many woody species identified only at the genus level. Complete the species names or explain why some species cannot be identified. Also check the names of species in an international context. For example, the internationally accepted name for Cerasus avium is Prunus avium. Many 'sp.' have missing dots.

 

Discussion, P10 L239-243: Consider your results in light of the many international studies that look at the effects of different harvesting methods/forest management on forest stand structure and diversity in very different areas (such as Europe, North America, and not just Asia). Your results should be presented more in an international context by comparing them with other studies. The results of many similar studies are likely to support your findings.

Discussion, P10 L239-241: “…two of three of the preferred fuelwood species were higher in importance no harvest than harvest areas” - something missing in this sentence.

Discussion, P11 L264-266: “…the frequency of ruderal and invasive species such as R. canina, Crataegus spp. and Prunus domestica increased with increasing human intervention and in highly degraded ecosystems” – From this sentence, one could conclude that these species are invasive alien species in this region. Could you elaborate on the status of these species (native or non-native to the area under study) to avoid misunderstanding.

 

References, P13-14: There are a lot of small errors, and this section needs additional review and improvement.

 

 

Author Response

Cover letter for Manuscript ID: forests-1393995

 

Edited Title: Fuelwood harvest and no harvest effects on forest composition, structure, and diversity of Arasbaran forests

 

Dear Editor of Forests;

 

 We deeply appreciate for the reviewers’ comments and suggestions on the manuscript. Our manuscript titled "How does replacement of fuelwood with fossil fuels affect forest composition, structure, and diversity of Arasbaran forests?" with manuscript ID forests-1393995 was edited based on these invaluable comments. In some cases, the whole text was checked and edited for the suggested changes, and, in other cases, a specific change was made as suggested. Our detailed response and revisions are explained below.  In the revised manuscript, we used highlighting to indicate which reviewer indicated the change: yellow color for reviewer # 1 and turquoise color for reviewer # 2, green color for reviewer # 3, red color for reviewer # 4, grey color for reviewer # 5, and pink color for reviewer # 6.

 

We deeply appreciate for the invaluable time and comments from the reviewers.

We look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely yours,

Corresponding authors

 

Reviewer’s comments and authors’ responses are as follows:

 

Reviewer #1

 

• The introduction could be improved by providing additional information about the species and size classes harvested for firewood in the area. This information could help support the hypotheses and the interpretation of the results. The introduction could also be strengthened by providing basic silvical information on the tree species that grow on these sites (shade tolerance, seeding vs. sprouting, growth rates) to better support the hypotheses and interpretation of the results.  

 

• We added description on the three main species of these forests on introduction page 2 line 70-91.

 

• Abstract - line 19 - "species diversity" does not indicate whether the prediction was for an increase or a decrease, but other indicators in that sentence include whether it is a predicted increase or decrease.  
• The sentence was edited on page 1 line 16-17.

 

• line 175 - dominate?  (not dominant?)
• The sentence was edited on page 7 line 218.

 

• Line 193 - "density tended to be lower trees in the harvest" - remove the word "trees"?  
• The sentence was edited on page 8 line 237.

 

• Line 251 - "low (1%) harvest areas" should be "low (1%) in harvest areas"?
• The sentence was edited on page 12 line 300.

 

• Line 253 - this is where more information on the silvics of Carpinus would be useful to interpret the results.  Carpinus seems to regenerate quickly after firewood harvest ceases, so I am not sure why there would be a need for conservation.  
• The sentence was added on page 12 line 302-307.

 

• Line 254 - gather's should be gatherers?
• The sentence was edited one page 12 line 308.

 

• Line 310 - researches should be research or researchers?
• The sentence was edited on page 13 line 374.

 

• It is difficult for me to determine how "close to nature" practices would be appropriate here and how "close to nature" practices would mimic conditions that increase diversity.  As I noted earlier, the introduction could be improved with more information on the ecology of forests in the area and the disturbance ecology of these forests. That may be difficult since these forests have been impacted by fuelwood harvest for a very long time. 
• We expanded the introduction as suggested on page 2 line 70-91 and edited the discussion on page 13 line 384-398 to clarify where close to nature forestry would be appropriate.

 

Reviewer #2

 

• I don’t agree with this sentence” The impacts of the fuelwood harvesting on forest structure and composition are not clear, especially for understudied ecosystems in developing countries”, there is thousands of article.
• The sentence was edited on page 1 line 14 to clarify that these effects are not clear in Arasbaran forests, Iran.

 

• There was some different font.
• The font was edited on page 1 line 26-29,

 

• There was a suggestion in cite a references.
• These references were cited on page 1 line 41.

 

• What about climate change, co2 gas emission?
• The text was edited on page 3 line 107 and 119-120 to indicate that clean energies are another alternative fuel provided in Iran.

 

• Not necessary, please tell us about the national program.
• It was removed on page 4 line 160.

 

• This strategy goes on the opposite of all international strategies! you should explain more, why ? how do you deal with climate change?
• The text was edited on page 3 line 119. In recent years, management plans of the Arasbaran forests emphasize the importance of providing fossil fuels and clean energies such as solar panels to replace fuelwood and meet the needs of villagers.

 

• I do not agree with this statement! It's a bit of a throwback to what happened during the industrial revolutions of the 19th century. If it is temporary it will allow the forest to rest and regenerate, if not in the long term I don't think it is a good idea. it's a bit of a throwback to what happened during the industrial revolutions in the 19th century
• This is true for other parts of the world. But, based on our knowledge, there was no research on this issue in Arasbaran forests. Text edits were made on page 3 line 124.

 

• There was asked to cite a reference.
• A reference was cited on page 3 line 146.

 

• What type of fossil fuel?
• Type was added on page 6 line 160.

 

• Scale? Use suitable map not from Google!
• The map was replaced with another map from Iran and study area of figure 1 page 5.

 

• Define when you first use the abbreviation
• The definition was added on page 5 line 186.

 

• It was asked Why 5 cm and not for? please cite reference
• Two references were cited on page 5 line 185 that they have used the same method.

 

• Choose between 1.3 m or 130 cm.
• The text was changed to 1.3 m on page 5 line 186.

 

• Rephrase! n=3 for both.
• The text was edited on page 5 line 190.

 

• It was suggested to change found to inventoried.
• The text was edited on page 6 line 206.

 

• It was asked to add a reference on the first sentence of discussion.
• A reference was added on page 11 line 279.

 

• Cite their heat value to endorse your statement
• Heat values were added on the discussion section page 12 line 293-296 with citation 2 references.

 

• What about deadwood?
• On page 12 line 311-315 we added two references and describe the importance of dead wood in the modern silviculture.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reviewer # 3

 

• L19, L108 - it is not clear what mean tree size means - height or diameter? Please consider to compare basal area among plots.
• The text was edited on page 1 line 17 and page 3 line 137 for dbh and height tree size.

 

• Table 1 - localization of would be expected in similar site conditions, why the plot with harvest are systematically localized in higher altitudes? It should be explained in the text.
• This explanation was added on page 5 line 188-191 and we discuss this in the discussion. In our study area, the plots with harvest are in higher altitudes, because these villages were not provided with fossil fuels and these villages continue to depend on fuelwood. The village in lower altitudes were provided with fossil fuels.

 

• L142 - mature trees are usually those ready for generative reproduction. Please consider to use another term instead of mature for trees above 5 cm dbh (e.g. grown).
• The terminology was changed on methods (page 5 line 188-191) and throughout the manuscript.

 

• Table 2 - a justification of used set of characteristics is missing.
•                We made revisions to explain the basis for Table 2. L210.

 

• L193, L336 - formulations are unclear.
•                These sentences were edited for clarity L204-205, L355-356.

 

 

Reviewer #4

 

• There is one basic problem with the project design: the plots in the sites are not comparable because altitudes differ substantially (approx. 290 m)! Altitudinal gradient is known as driver for change in species composition, vegetation (tree) height, species diversity etc. Mean air temperature decreases approx. 0.5 °C per each 100 m. All mentioned conclusions are out of reality because design is wrong.
• This is correct but access to the forest area was limited.  We added a statement that recognizes the altitudinal differences in the methods L170-174 and we added a caveat paragraph to the discussion on page 13 line 390-405.

 

• The potential natural vegetation is not described for each plot.
• The potential natural vegetation is the same as the major species observed in the harvest and no harvest areas. This includes the mixed forest type of Quercus macranthera, Carpinus orientalis, and Acer campestre. This was added to L151-152.

 

• The actual vegetation (tree species composition) is not listed for each plot.
• We prepared supplementary materials that list species by plot.

 

• I do not understand combination of parameters DBH<5cm and height<1.3m against DBH>5cm and height>1.3m. Many individuals are of DBH<5cm and height>1.3m - they are omitted?
• This was a typo and was revised for clarity. The threshold for woody species and regeneration was height=1.3. The method section was edited L188-191.

 

• Species as Rosa canina are shrubs, not trees!
• Thank you noting this error; we have added shrub to describe the data and size classes through the manuscript.

 

• It is common that slight disturbance tends to increase of diversity.
• We agree.

 

• Light condition under canopy is basic environmental parameter. It is not described. There is no info about canopy cover for each plot.
• We have inventoried canopy cover for each plot and it was added on page 8 line 248-249 and table 4. Canopy cover in harvest area tended to be lower than no harvest areas.

 

 

Reviewer #5

 

• Abstract, P1 L14-15: The following sentence, “Over three billion people in the world live in rural areas with inadequate supply of energy for cooking, lighting, heating, and other purposes." is probably not directly consistent with the theme of this manuscript, which explains the effects of fuelwood harvesting on forest structure and composition. Rephrase this part slightly to introduce the main message of the study.
• The text was edited and changed on page 1 line 13 with another sentence.

 

• Abstract, P1 L16: “especially for understudied ecosystems in developing countries.” – I would suggest replacing 'ecosystems' with another term, like regions, areas. The term 'ecosystem' is generally used more in the ecological sense, but in this case it seems to have a broader meaning, including social aspects.
• The sentence was edited on page 1 line 14.

 

• Abstract, P1 L19-20: “We expected fuelwood harvesting to decrease stem density, species diversity, decrease mean tree size, and shift composition away from preferred fuelwood species.” – I am not sure that this assumption is correct. You are assuming that timber harvesting, including fuelwood harvesting, has only negative effects on forest diversity and structure. For instance, Muvengwi et al. (2020) found that tree diversity and density were even higher in harvested sites than in unharvested sites. Review the relevant literature and rephrase this part.
• The literature is conflicting on the effects of fuelwood harvesting on forests.  Based on our literature review, our hypotheses were as stated. We edited on page 1 line 16 for clarity. 

 

• Abstract, P1 L23: ‘Carpainus orientalis’ – correct is ‘Carpinus orientalis’
• This species was edited and also other species spellings were checked and corrected as needed throughout the whole text.

 

• Abstract, P1 L23: ‘IVI’ – Include a brief description of this index (importance values index?) so that it can be understood by broader readers.
• A description was added on page 1 line 21 (and described in the method section).

 

• Abstract, P1 L24: “Species richness was higher in harvest” – explain that species richness is only related to the diversity of tree species (not to other plants or even other groups). I suspect you are focusing only on the diversity or richness of tree species.
• The text was changed to the woody species; we also checked the entire manuscript for consistence.

 

• Abstract, P1 L26: “…by shorter and lower density of trees” – is a little confusing. It could be understood as 'shorter... density of trees'. What is meant by this? I assume the term 'shorter' refers to the height of the trees, not their density. That should be clear. You could probably use another explanation, such as 'shorter tree heights' or something like that.
• The text was edited on page 1 line 24.

 

• Abstract, P1 L26: ‘more regeneration’ – probably ‘more intensive regeneration’.
•                The text was edited on page 1 line 25.

 

• Introduction, P1 L35-36: “Over three billion people in the world live in rural areas with inadequate supply of energy for cooking, lighting, heating and other purposes.” – it is completely the same sentence as the first one in Abstract. Change it a little so that it does not repeat itself twice.
• The sentence was not necessary in the abstract and was removed.

 

• Introduction, P2 L66-67: "Rural communities usually harvest Quercus macranthera, Carpinus betulus, and Acer campestre..." - Does this refer to Iran in general or only to the Arasbaran forest region? It is not clear.
• We have added Arasbaran region on page 2 line 67-69.

 

• Introduction, P2 L67-68: "...as a fuelwood sources due to high density of these species in the Arasbaran forest region." - Are these three species very common in the Arasbaran forest region? Or are they dominant in studied forests? Do they have a high growing stock? Add an explanation to avoid any possible misunderstanding.
• This sentence was added on page 2 line 67-69.

 

• Materials and methods, P3 L118-121: “The main species in these forests are oak (Quercus macranthera Fisch. & C.A.Mey. ex Hohen.), hornbeam (Carpinus betulus L.), maple (Acer campestre L.), yew (Taxus baccata L.), wayfaring tree (Viburnum lantana L.), reddish-black berry (Ribes petraeum Wulfen), and walnut (Juglans regia L.).” – Add the full English names of these species (one name for each will be enough): missing Caucasian or Persian Oak, European or Common Hornbeam, Field Maple, Common or European Yew, etc. In this list, tree species are mixed with some common shrub species, such as Viburnum lantana, Ribes petraeum. Do they reach at least up to 5m in height? I would suggest separating the list of dominant tree and shrub species? Are all these tree and shrub species target fuelwood?

 

• The common English names were added on page 3 line 147-151. Some shrubs are tall and harvested by villagers; although some species may be preferred because of their high abundance, all woody species are considered potential fuelwood in these areas (personal observations).

 

• Materials and methods, Table 1, P3 L125: The mean altitude of harvested sites is 2,145 m, that of unharvested sites only 1,856 m. Altitude is an ecological factor that has significant effects on forest structure, composition, diversity, etc. Have you tested the effects of this factor on the studied sites? What about other variables, e.g. slope, exposition?

 

• This is true but access to forest area was limited. We added a statement that recognizes the altitudinal differences in the methods page 4 line 170-174 and we added a caveat paragraph to the discussion page 13 Line 390-405.

 

• Materials and methods, P5 L142-143: “Mature trees were defined as DBH ≥ 5 cm and height ≥ 1.3 m. Regenerating trees were defined DBH < 5 cm and height < 1.3 m.“ - The threshold between mature and young/regenerating trees is only 5 cm DBH and 1.3 m height. Explain how you decided on these thresholds. Relate your decision to some relevant references. By the way, one of the commonly used thresholds between mature and young trees is 10 cm DBH and 5 m height.
• Two references were cited on page 5 line 192 that they have used the same method. The methods were corrected to indicate height as the threshold between mature (now called woody species) and regeneration stems L188-191.

 

• Materials and methods, P5 L145: “The species identification was based on the Iranian flora books …” – add the sources for botanical nomenclature, even if they are only in Iranian. You can add a free English translation of the titles.
• The reference for species identification was added on page 5 line 194.

 

• Materials and methods, P5 L149. “…presented forharvest (n=3)…” – make a space between words
• The text was edited on page 5 line 197.

 

• Results, P5 L163-164: “Results showed that 21 species in total were found across all sites. In the harvest areas, we identified 19 species, while 17 species were found in no harvest areas.” – This is not clear enough. Does this refer only to mature trees, or does it include regrowing/young trees (DBH < 5 cm and height < 1.3 m) too? Do this numbers refer only to tree species, or do they also include shrub species?
• These sentences were edited on page 5 line 188-192. These species were woody species including tree and shrub species; the text was edited throughout.

 

• Results, P5-6 L164-170: Add an explanation that the species listed in this part are mature trees, as shown in Figure 2. See also the previous comment.
• These species were woody species including tree and shrub species; the text was edited throughout.

 

• Results, P6, Figure 2, L171-173: ‘ Mean ± SE relative frequency percent of all mature (DBH ≥ 5 cm and height ≥ 1.3 m) tree species…’ – It is rather confusing. The caption of Figure 2 mentions mature tree species. In my opinion, there are many shrub species among the tree species. This is probably due to the threshold mentioned above. Try to distinguish between two groups of woody species: true tree species and shrub species. Another solution is to use the term 'woody plants' or a similar term. In botany, a tree is a perennial plant with an elongated trunk that bears branches and leaves in most species. Trees are also usually defined by their height, with smaller plants of 0.5 to 5 m (or even 10 m) being called shrubs. There are many different definitions of trees, but there is no very general and simple definition of trees and how they differ from shrubs. However, it would be advisable to make this demarcation even if you use very general criteria. You can also use some national criteria and definitions, probably based on regional ecological conditions.
• Other reviewers pointed this out as well. We edited the terminology throughout.

 

• Results, P6, Figure 2, L171-173 & P7, Figure 3, L185-187 & P10, Figure 6, L230-232: In all three figures there are many woody species identified only at the genus level. Complete the species names or explain why some species cannot be identified. Also check the names of species in an international context. For example, the internationally accepted name for Cerasus aviumis Prunus avium. Many 'sp.' have missing dots.
• All species names were checked and corrected throughout the manuscript.

 

• Discussion, P10 L239-243: Consider your results in light of the many international studies that look at the effects of different harvesting methods/forest management on forest stand structure and diversity in very different areas (such as Europe, North America, and not just Asia). Your results should be presented more in an international context by comparing them with other studies. The results of many similar studies are likely to support your findings.
• Five references were cited from Europe and America about the effect of harvesting on forest composition and species diversity (Europe [34,35], America [36-38]).

 

• Discussion, P10 L239-241: “…two of three of the preferred fuelwood species were higher in importance no harvest than harvest areas” - something missing in this sentence.
• The sentence was edited on page 11 line 292-295. Two of three of the preferred fuelwood species ( orientalis and Q. macranthera) were higher in IVI and density in the no harvest area than harvest areas, and regeneration of all species was higher in harvest than no harvest areas.

 

• Discussion, P11 L264-266: “…the frequency of ruderal and invasive species such as R. canina, Crataegus spp. and Prunus domestica increased with increasing human intervention and in highly degraded ecosystems”– From this sentence, one could conclude that these species are invasive alien species in this region. Could you elaborate on the status of these species (native or non-native to the area under study) to avoid misunderstanding.
• These species were not invasive. We edited on the text for clarity line 328.

 

• References, P13-14: There are a lot of small errors, and this section needs additional review and improvement.
• Based on your comments, all references were checked and edited as needed.

 

Reviewer # 6

 

The manuscript „How does replacement of fuelwood with fossil fuels affect forest composition, structure and diversity of Arasbaran biosphere reserve forest?” reports the results about comparison of tree and forest site parameters in harvested and non harvested forest sites. The main problem of the article, that the main idea of the article, to compare harvested and non harvested forest sites, has been explored many times, nothing new here. In addition, there is no presented primary data of harvest fuelwood sites. It’s hard to understand which tree species were harvested, how many trees were cut and etc., therefore, to do conclusions from such date is incorrect. Authors wrote – “results showed differences in composition, diversity, tree height and density”! It’s not a result, it is from a very long known book knowledge. 

 

Response: Our study focused on the residual forest condition to begin establishing baseline information on Arasbaran forests. We did not have the resources to also measure stumps or measure cut fuelwood.  This is the first study to investigate fuelwood harvesting in the Arasbaran forests.  Future research should focus on more detail to unravel any preferred species or sizes in fuelwood harvest, frequency of cutting, amount/volume cut, etc.  Our results point out interesting potential recovery trends around the villages with access to alternative fuel (no fuelwood harvesting) in addition to potential effects of on-going fuewood harvest.  Our work suggests both the no harvest and harvest areas have opportunities to develop sustainable forest management practices for this understudied and scarce forest type in Iran.

 

• The title of the article is too long.
• We edited the title to be more concise than the original version.

 

• Originality: this is the first question to be asked: the authors need to clearly highlight where and how their work is original in comparison to earlier papers; such an originality is a prerequisite to publication.
• This research topic has not been studied in Arasbaran forests.  We edited the introduction to highlight this more clearly.

 

• On page 5 “Mature trees were defined as DBH> 5 cm and height > 1.3 m.” It’s not logical, because the DBH are measure at 1.3 m. therefore tree can’t be smaller. To mine opinion better use tree age. 
• The threshold for woody species and regeneration was height=1.3. We edited the methods and throughout for clarity.

 

• Conclusions must be improved, because at the moment it’s more like abstract. Conclusion must show what results are the best and what new was found in this study. 
• We edited the conclusion for clarity and highlighted interesting results important to informing management and application of the findings.

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 6 Report

The manuscript „How does replacement of fuelwood with fossil fuels affect forest composition, structure and diversity of Arasbaran biosphere reserve forest?” reports the results about  comparison of tree and forest site  parameters in harvested and non harvested forest sites. The main problem of the article, that the main idea of the article, to compare  harvested and non harvested forest sites, has been explored many times, nothing new here. In addition, there is no presented primary data of harvest fuelwood sites. It’s hard to understand which tree species were harvested, how many trees were cut and etc., therefore, to do conclusions from such date is incorrect. Authors wrote – “results showed differences in composition, diversity, tree height and density” ! It’s not a result, it is from a very long known book knowledges. 

•    The title of the article is too long.
•    Originality: this is the first question to be asked: the authors need to clearly highlight where and how their work is original in comparison to earlier papers; such an originality is a prerequisite to publication.
•    On page 5 “Mature trees were defined as DBH> 5 cm and height > 1,3 m.” It’s not logical, because the DBH are measure at 1.3 m. therefore tree can’t be smaller. To mine opinion better use tree age. 
•    Conclusions must be improved, because at the moment it’s more like abstract. Conclusion must show what results are the best and what new was found in this study. 
However, the current draft in my opinion this article is not suitable for publication.

Author Response

Cover letter for Manuscript ID: forests-1393995

 

Edited Title: Fuelwood harvest and no harvest effects on forest composition, structure, and diversity of Arasbaran forests

 

Dear Editor of Forests;

 

 We deeply appreciate for the reviewers’ comments and suggestions on the manuscript. Our manuscript titled "How does replacement of fuelwood with fossil fuels affect forest composition, structure, and diversity of Arasbaran forests?" with manuscript ID forests-1393995 was edited based on these invaluable comments. In some cases, the whole text was checked and edited for the suggested changes, and, in other cases, a specific change was made as suggested. Our detailed response and revisions are explained below.  In the revised manuscript, we used highlighting to indicate which reviewer indicated the change: yellow color for reviewer # 1 and turquoise color for reviewer # 2, green color for reviewer # 3, red color for reviewer # 4, grey color for reviewer # 5, and pink color for reviewer # 6.

 

We deeply appreciate for the invaluable time and comments from the reviewers.

We look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely yours,

Corresponding authors

 

Reviewer’s comments and authors’ responses are as follows:

 

Reviewer #1

 

• The introduction could be improved by providing additional information about the species and size classes harvested for firewood in the area. This information could help support the hypotheses and the interpretation of the results. The introduction could also be strengthened by providing basic silvical information on the tree species that grow on these sites (shade tolerance, seeding vs. sprouting, growth rates) to better support the hypotheses and interpretation of the results.  

 

• We added description on the three main species of these forests on introduction page 2 line 70-91.

 

• Abstract - line 19 - "species diversity" does not indicate whether the prediction was for an increase or a decrease, but other indicators in that sentence include whether it is a predicted increase or decrease.  
• The sentence was edited on page 1 line 16-17.

 

• line 175 - dominate?  (not dominant?)
• The sentence was edited on page 7 line 218.

 

• Line 193 - "density tended to be lower trees in the harvest" - remove the word "trees"?  
• The sentence was edited on page 8 line 237.

 

• Line 251 - "low (1%) harvest areas" should be "low (1%) in harvest areas"?
• The sentence was edited on page 12 line 300.

 

• Line 253 - this is where more information on the silvics of Carpinus would be useful to interpret the results.  Carpinus seems to regenerate quickly after firewood harvest ceases, so I am not sure why there would be a need for conservation.  
• The sentence was added on page 12 line 302-307.

 

• Line 254 - gather's should be gatherers?
• The sentence was edited one page 12 line 308.

 

• Line 310 - researches should be research or researchers?
• The sentence was edited on page 13 line 374.

 

• It is difficult for me to determine how "close to nature" practices would be appropriate here and how "close to nature" practices would mimic conditions that increase diversity.  As I noted earlier, the introduction could be improved with more information on the ecology of forests in the area and the disturbance ecology of these forests. That may be difficult since these forests have been impacted by fuelwood harvest for a very long time. 
• We expanded the introduction as suggested on page 2 line 70-91 and edited the discussion on page 13 line 384-398 to clarify where close to nature forestry would be appropriate.

 

Reviewer #2

 

• I don’t agree with this sentence” The impacts of the fuelwood harvesting on forest structure and composition are not clear, especially for understudied ecosystems in developing countries”, there is thousands of article.
• The sentence was edited on page 1 line 14 to clarify that these effects are not clear in Arasbaran forests, Iran.

 

• There was some different font.
• The font was edited on page 1 line 26-29,

 

• There was a suggestion in cite a references.
• These references were cited on page 1 line 41.

 

• What about climate change, co2 gas emission?
• The text was edited on page 3 line 107 and 119-120 to indicate that clean energies are another alternative fuel provided in Iran.

 

• Not necessary, please tell us about the national program.
• It was removed on page 4 line 160.

 

• This strategy goes on the opposite of all international strategies! you should explain more, why ? how do you deal with climate change?
• The text was edited on page 3 line 119. In recent years, management plans of the Arasbaran forests emphasize the importance of providing fossil fuels and clean energies such as solar panels to replace fuelwood and meet the needs of villagers.

 

• I do not agree with this statement! It's a bit of a throwback to what happened during the industrial revolutions of the 19th century. If it is temporary it will allow the forest to rest and regenerate, if not in the long term I don't think it is a good idea. it's a bit of a throwback to what happened during the industrial revolutions in the 19th century
• This is true for other parts of the world. But, based on our knowledge, there was no research on this issue in Arasbaran forests. Text edits were made on page 3 line 124.

 

• There was asked to cite a reference.
• A reference was cited on page 3 line 146.

 

• What type of fossil fuel?
• Type was added on page 6 line 160.

 

• Scale? Use suitable map not from Google!
• The map was replaced with another map from Iran and study area of figure 1 page 5.

 

• Define when you first use the abbreviation
• The definition was added on page 5 line 186.

 

• It was asked Why 5 cm and not for? please cite reference
• Two references were cited on page 5 line 185 that they have used the same method.

 

• Choose between 1.3 m or 130 cm.
• The text was changed to 1.3 m on page 5 line 186.

 

• Rephrase! n=3 for both.
• The text was edited on page 5 line 190.

 

• It was suggested to change found to inventoried.
• The text was edited on page 6 line 206.

 

• It was asked to add a reference on the first sentence of discussion.
• A reference was added on page 11 line 279.

 

• Cite their heat value to endorse your statement
• Heat values were added on the discussion section page 12 line 293-296 with citation 2 references.

 

• What about deadwood?
• On page 12 line 311-315 we added two references and describe the importance of dead wood in the modern silviculture.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reviewer # 3

 

• L19, L108 - it is not clear what mean tree size means - height or diameter? Please consider to compare basal area among plots.
• The text was edited on page 1 line 17 and page 3 line 137 for dbh and height tree size.

 

• Table 1 - localization of would be expected in similar site conditions, why the plot with harvest are systematically localized in higher altitudes? It should be explained in the text.
• This explanation was added on page 5 line 188-191 and we discuss this in the discussion. In our study area, the plots with harvest are in higher altitudes, because these villages were not provided with fossil fuels and these villages continue to depend on fuelwood. The village in lower altitudes were provided with fossil fuels.

 

• L142 - mature trees are usually those ready for generative reproduction. Please consider to use another term instead of mature for trees above 5 cm dbh (e.g. grown).
• The terminology was changed on methods (page 5 line 188-191) and throughout the manuscript.

 

• Table 2 - a justification of used set of characteristics is missing.
•                We made revisions to explain the basis for Table 2. L210.

 

• L193, L336 - formulations are unclear.
•                These sentences were edited for clarity L204-205, L355-356.

 

 

Reviewer #4

 

• There is one basic problem with the project design: the plots in the sites are not comparable because altitudes differ substantially (approx. 290 m)! Altitudinal gradient is known as driver for change in species composition, vegetation (tree) height, species diversity etc. Mean air temperature decreases approx. 0.5 °C per each 100 m. All mentioned conclusions are out of reality because design is wrong.
• This is correct but access to the forest area was limited.  We added a statement that recognizes the altitudinal differences in the methods L170-174 and we added a caveat paragraph to the discussion on page 13 line 390-405.

 

• The potential natural vegetation is not described for each plot.
• The potential natural vegetation is the same as the major species observed in the harvest and no harvest areas. This includes the mixed forest type of Quercus macranthera, Carpinus orientalis, and Acer campestre. This was added to L151-152.

 

• The actual vegetation (tree species composition) is not listed for each plot.
• We prepared supplementary materials that list species by plot.

 

• I do not understand combination of parameters DBH<5cm and height<1.3m against DBH>5cm and height>1.3m. Many individuals are of DBH<5cm and height>1.3m - they are omitted?
• This was a typo and was revised for clarity. The threshold for woody species and regeneration was height=1.3. The method section was edited L188-191.

 

• Species as Rosa canina are shrubs, not trees!
• Thank you noting this error; we have added shrub to describe the data and size classes through the manuscript.

 

• It is common that slight disturbance tends to increase of diversity.
• We agree.

 

• Light condition under canopy is basic environmental parameter. It is not described. There is no info about canopy cover for each plot.
• We have inventoried canopy cover for each plot and it was added on page 8 line 248-249 and table 4. Canopy cover in harvest area tended to be lower than no harvest areas.

 

 

Reviewer #5

 

• Abstract, P1 L14-15: The following sentence, “Over three billion people in the world live in rural areas with inadequate supply of energy for cooking, lighting, heating, and other purposes." is probably not directly consistent with the theme of this manuscript, which explains the effects of fuelwood harvesting on forest structure and composition. Rephrase this part slightly to introduce the main message of the study.
• The text was edited and changed on page 1 line 13 with another sentence.

 

• Abstract, P1 L16: “especially for understudied ecosystems in developing countries.” – I would suggest replacing 'ecosystems' with another term, like regions, areas. The term 'ecosystem' is generally used more in the ecological sense, but in this case it seems to have a broader meaning, including social aspects.
• The sentence was edited on page 1 line 14.

 

• Abstract, P1 L19-20: “We expected fuelwood harvesting to decrease stem density, species diversity, decrease mean tree size, and shift composition away from preferred fuelwood species.” – I am not sure that this assumption is correct. You are assuming that timber harvesting, including fuelwood harvesting, has only negative effects on forest diversity and structure. For instance, Muvengwi et al. (2020) found that tree diversity and density were even higher in harvested sites than in unharvested sites. Review the relevant literature and rephrase this part.
• The literature is conflicting on the effects of fuelwood harvesting on forests.  Based on our literature review, our hypotheses were as stated. We edited on page 1 line 16 for clarity. 

 

• Abstract, P1 L23: ‘Carpainus orientalis’ – correct is ‘Carpinus orientalis’
• This species was edited and also other species spellings were checked and corrected as needed throughout the whole text.

 

• Abstract, P1 L23: ‘IVI’ – Include a brief description of this index (importance values index?) so that it can be understood by broader readers.
• A description was added on page 1 line 21 (and described in the method section).

 

• Abstract, P1 L24: “Species richness was higher in harvest” – explain that species richness is only related to the diversity of tree species (not to other plants or even other groups). I suspect you are focusing only on the diversity or richness of tree species.
• The text was changed to the woody species; we also checked the entire manuscript for consistence.

 

• Abstract, P1 L26: “…by shorter and lower density of trees” – is a little confusing. It could be understood as 'shorter... density of trees'. What is meant by this? I assume the term 'shorter' refers to the height of the trees, not their density. That should be clear. You could probably use another explanation, such as 'shorter tree heights' or something like that.
• The text was edited on page 1 line 24.

 

• Abstract, P1 L26: ‘more regeneration’ – probably ‘more intensive regeneration’.
•                The text was edited on page 1 line 25.

 

• Introduction, P1 L35-36: “Over three billion people in the world live in rural areas with inadequate supply of energy for cooking, lighting, heating and other purposes.” – it is completely the same sentence as the first one in Abstract. Change it a little so that it does not repeat itself twice.
• The sentence was not necessary in the abstract and was removed.

 

• Introduction, P2 L66-67: "Rural communities usually harvest Quercus macranthera, Carpinus betulus, and Acer campestre..." - Does this refer to Iran in general or only to the Arasbaran forest region? It is not clear.
• We have added Arasbaran region on page 2 line 67-69.

 

• Introduction, P2 L67-68: "...as a fuelwood sources due to high density of these species in the Arasbaran forest region." - Are these three species very common in the Arasbaran forest region? Or are they dominant in studied forests? Do they have a high growing stock? Add an explanation to avoid any possible misunderstanding.
• This sentence was added on page 2 line 67-69.

 

• Materials and methods, P3 L118-121: “The main species in these forests are oak (Quercus macranthera Fisch. & C.A.Mey. ex Hohen.), hornbeam (Carpinus betulus L.), maple (Acer campestre L.), yew (Taxus baccata L.), wayfaring tree (Viburnum lantana L.), reddish-black berry (Ribes petraeum Wulfen), and walnut (Juglans regia L.).” – Add the full English names of these species (one name for each will be enough): missing Caucasian or Persian Oak, European or Common Hornbeam, Field Maple, Common or European Yew, etc. In this list, tree species are mixed with some common shrub species, such as Viburnum lantana, Ribes petraeum. Do they reach at least up to 5m in height? I would suggest separating the list of dominant tree and shrub species? Are all these tree and shrub species target fuelwood?

 

• The common English names were added on page 3 line 147-151. Some shrubs are tall and harvested by villagers; although some species may be preferred because of their high abundance, all woody species are considered potential fuelwood in these areas (personal observations).

 

• Materials and methods, Table 1, P3 L125: The mean altitude of harvested sites is 2,145 m, that of unharvested sites only 1,856 m. Altitude is an ecological factor that has significant effects on forest structure, composition, diversity, etc. Have you tested the effects of this factor on the studied sites? What about other variables, e.g. slope, exposition?

 

• This is true but access to forest area was limited. We added a statement that recognizes the altitudinal differences in the methods page 4 line 170-174 and we added a caveat paragraph to the discussion page 13 Line 390-405.

 

• Materials and methods, P5 L142-143: “Mature trees were defined as DBH ≥ 5 cm and height ≥ 1.3 m. Regenerating trees were defined DBH < 5 cm and height < 1.3 m.“ - The threshold between mature and young/regenerating trees is only 5 cm DBH and 1.3 m height. Explain how you decided on these thresholds. Relate your decision to some relevant references. By the way, one of the commonly used thresholds between mature and young trees is 10 cm DBH and 5 m height.
• Two references were cited on page 5 line 192 that they have used the same method. The methods were corrected to indicate height as the threshold between mature (now called woody species) and regeneration stems L188-191.

 

• Materials and methods, P5 L145: “The species identification was based on the Iranian flora books …” – add the sources for botanical nomenclature, even if they are only in Iranian. You can add a free English translation of the titles.
• The reference for species identification was added on page 5 line 194.

 

• Materials and methods, P5 L149. “…presented forharvest (n=3)…” – make a space between words
• The text was edited on page 5 line 197.

 

• Results, P5 L163-164: “Results showed that 21 species in total were found across all sites. In the harvest areas, we identified 19 species, while 17 species were found in no harvest areas.” – This is not clear enough. Does this refer only to mature trees, or does it include regrowing/young trees (DBH < 5 cm and height < 1.3 m) too? Do this numbers refer only to tree species, or do they also include shrub species?
• These sentences were edited on page 5 line 188-192. These species were woody species including tree and shrub species; the text was edited throughout.

 

• Results, P5-6 L164-170: Add an explanation that the species listed in this part are mature trees, as shown in Figure 2. See also the previous comment.
• These species were woody species including tree and shrub species; the text was edited throughout.

 

• Results, P6, Figure 2, L171-173: ‘ Mean ± SE relative frequency percent of all mature (DBH ≥ 5 cm and height ≥ 1.3 m) tree species…’ – It is rather confusing. The caption of Figure 2 mentions mature tree species. In my opinion, there are many shrub species among the tree species. This is probably due to the threshold mentioned above. Try to distinguish between two groups of woody species: true tree species and shrub species. Another solution is to use the term 'woody plants' or a similar term. In botany, a tree is a perennial plant with an elongated trunk that bears branches and leaves in most species. Trees are also usually defined by their height, with smaller plants of 0.5 to 5 m (or even 10 m) being called shrubs. There are many different definitions of trees, but there is no very general and simple definition of trees and how they differ from shrubs. However, it would be advisable to make this demarcation even if you use very general criteria. You can also use some national criteria and definitions, probably based on regional ecological conditions.
• Other reviewers pointed this out as well. We edited the terminology throughout.

 

• Results, P6, Figure 2, L171-173 & P7, Figure 3, L185-187 & P10, Figure 6, L230-232: In all three figures there are many woody species identified only at the genus level. Complete the species names or explain why some species cannot be identified. Also check the names of species in an international context. For example, the internationally accepted name for Cerasus aviumis Prunus avium. Many 'sp.' have missing dots.
• All species names were checked and corrected throughout the manuscript.

 

• Discussion, P10 L239-243: Consider your results in light of the many international studies that look at the effects of different harvesting methods/forest management on forest stand structure and diversity in very different areas (such as Europe, North America, and not just Asia). Your results should be presented more in an international context by comparing them with other studies. The results of many similar studies are likely to support your findings.
• Five references were cited from Europe and America about the effect of harvesting on forest composition and species diversity (Europe [34,35], America [36-38]).

 

• Discussion, P10 L239-241: “…two of three of the preferred fuelwood species were higher in importance no harvest than harvest areas” - something missing in this sentence.
• The sentence was edited on page 11 line 292-295. Two of three of the preferred fuelwood species ( orientalis and Q. macranthera) were higher in IVI and density in the no harvest area than harvest areas, and regeneration of all species was higher in harvest than no harvest areas.

 

• Discussion, P11 L264-266: “…the frequency of ruderal and invasive species such as R. canina, Crataegus spp. and Prunus domestica increased with increasing human intervention and in highly degraded ecosystems”– From this sentence, one could conclude that these species are invasive alien species in this region. Could you elaborate on the status of these species (native or non-native to the area under study) to avoid misunderstanding.
• These species were not invasive. We edited on the text for clarity line 328.

 

• References, P13-14: There are a lot of small errors, and this section needs additional review and improvement.
• Based on your comments, all references were checked and edited as needed.

 

Reviewer # 6

 

The manuscript „How does replacement of fuelwood with fossil fuels affect forest composition, structure and diversity of Arasbaran biosphere reserve forest?” reports the results about comparison of tree and forest site parameters in harvested and non harvested forest sites. The main problem of the article, that the main idea of the article, to compare harvested and non harvested forest sites, has been explored many times, nothing new here. In addition, there is no presented primary data of harvest fuelwood sites. It’s hard to understand which tree species were harvested, how many trees were cut and etc., therefore, to do conclusions from such date is incorrect. Authors wrote – “results showed differences in composition, diversity, tree height and density”! It’s not a result, it is from a very long known book knowledge. 

 

Response: Our study focused on the residual forest condition to begin establishing baseline information on Arasbaran forests. We did not have the resources to also measure stumps or measure cut fuelwood.  This is the first study to investigate fuelwood harvesting in the Arasbaran forests.  Future research should focus on more detail to unravel any preferred species or sizes in fuelwood harvest, frequency of cutting, amount/volume cut, etc.  Our results point out interesting potential recovery trends around the villages with access to alternative fuel (no fuelwood harvesting) in addition to potential effects of on-going fuewood harvest.  Our work suggests both the no harvest and harvest areas have opportunities to develop sustainable forest management practices for this understudied and scarce forest type in Iran.

 

• The title of the article is too long.
• We edited the title to be more concise than the original version.

 

• Originality: this is the first question to be asked: the authors need to clearly highlight where and how their work is original in comparison to earlier papers; such an originality is a prerequisite to publication.
• This research topic has not been studied in Arasbaran forests.  We edited the introduction to highlight this more clearly.

 

• On page 5 “Mature trees were defined as DBH> 5 cm and height > 1.3 m.” It’s not logical, because the DBH are measure at 1.3 m. therefore tree can’t be smaller. To mine opinion better use tree age. 
• The threshold for woody species and regeneration was height=1.3. We edited the methods and throughout for clarity.

 

• Conclusions must be improved, because at the moment it’s more like abstract. Conclusion must show what results are the best and what new was found in this study. 
• We edited the conclusion for clarity and highlighted interesting results important to informing management and application of the findings.

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The current version of the manuscript (as corrected by the authors) is much better than the previous version. The paper is very fluid, well structured with explicit aims. I appreciate the changes made to the manuscript from all reviewers comments.

The authors have incorporated all my comments and suggestions from the first round, in particular the question of deadwood and soil fertility. I therfore recommend accepting the paper in the present form.

 

Author Response

Cover letter for Manuscript ID: forests-1393995

 

Edited Title: Fuelwood harvest and no harvest effects on forest composition, structure, and diversity of Arasbaran forests - a case study

 

Dear Editor of Forests;

 

 We deeply appreciate the second round of the reviewers’ comments and suggestions on the manuscript. Our manuscript titled "Fuelwood harvest and no harvest effects on forest composition, structure, and diversity of Arasbaran forests" with manuscript ID forests-1393995 was edited and improved based on these invaluable comments. The reviewer comments were address both specifically as suggested, and, in other cases, broadly throughout the manuscript. Our detailed response and revisions are explained below. In the revised manuscript, we used highlighting to indicate which reviewer indicated the change. Also, the whole text was checked and edited for English grammar by our native, English speaking co-author.

 

We deeply appreciate for the invaluable time and comments from the reviewers.

We look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely yours,

Corresponding authors

 

Reviewer’s comments and authors’ responses are as follows:

 

Reviewer #4

• Without more detail discussion of influence of altitude, the paper is not possible to publish. There is no data for decision between reason of classification plots in left- and right-part in the figure (altitude / management or a combination of both ones). See newly classified data in the supplementary file.

 

• We added more explanation and clarity to altitude in the study design in the methods (L173-179) and discussion (L406-428), noting that altitude could explain these trends (including that preliminary cluster analysis showed division that could be explained by harvesting, elevation, or both) and that further research is needed. We also carefully reviewed the manuscript and revised throughout to provide tentative language when presenting results, clarify that this is a case study (not a replicated design) (including adding “case study” to the title), and that inference is limited without follow-up studies.

 

• There is a concern about this statement "We assumed minor differences in composition and growth between the two watersheds and elevations based on personal observation and experience in this forest type."

 

• In our study we observed the main species (Quercus, Carpinus, Acer, and Viburnum) at both altitudes with different density, similar to another Iranian study Safari et al. (2020) and Safari et al. (2019) (who found that species richness was not significantly different across altitudes similar to our study).

Safari, M.; Sefidi, K.; Alijanpour, A.; Elahian, M.R. Evaluation of altitude effects on the spatial structure of Caucasian oak (Quercus macranthera) stands in Arasbaran protected forests, Northwest of Iran. Forestry Ideas 2019, 25, 227-236.

Safari, M.; Omid, N.; Sefidi, K.; Abhasht, S.; Elahian, M.R. Influence of Elevation on Tree Species Biodiversity Indicators in Arasbaran Forest. Journal of Environmental Science Studies 2020, 5, 2801-2806.

 

• According to the comment to Include info about limits (and optima) of altitudinal distributions of the main species.

 

• The limit of altitudinal distributions of the main species was added on the page 2 and paragraph 2 line 72-74, line 81-82, and line 89-90.

 

• Divide woody species in the groups of trees and shrubs.

 

• Based on this comment, we described woody species as tree and shrub, added on page 6 line 220-225. Some of species (Carpinus orientalis, Quercus macranthera. Acer campestre, Pyrus syriaca, Sorbus aucuparia, Prunus avium, Malus orientalis, Mespilus germanica, Sorbus graeca, and Acer monspessulanum) had tree form and some other (Viburnum lantana, Cornus sanguinea, Prunus spinosa, Lonicera iberica, Crataegus orientalis, Euonymus latifolius, Juniperus excelsa, Berberis vulgaris, Cotoneaster hissaria, Ribes biebersteinii, and Rosa canina) had shrub form.

 

Reviewer # 6

 

The authors have corrected and improved the quality of the article, corrected the ambiguities, but the main problem remains, which the authors cannot correct - the lack of novelty in the article. The research, according to well-known methodologies, was conducted in a new forest, therefore old and well-known trends was obtained. To my opinion the novelty is very local.

Response: We appreciate for this comment. While this case study provides some baseline data, it is the first of many more studies that will be necessary to understand stand dynamics and management of the understudied Arasbaran forests. In recent years, the strategic plans of forest management in Iran and also in the Arasbaran forests have emphasized the importance of providing fossil fuels and clean energies such as solar panels to replace fuelwood and meet the needs of villagers. Based on our knowledge, the effects of switching from fuelwood to another energy source have not been studied on forest composition, diversity, and structure in Iran and especially in the Arasbaran forests. For this reason, the results of this research are the first steps in establishing baseline data on harvest effects on the scarce forest cover in Iran.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

All comments are in the file docx.

Comments for author File: Comments.zip

Author Response

Cover letter for Manuscript ID: forests-1393995

 

Edited Title: Fuelwood harvest and no harvest effects on forest composition, structure, and diversity of Arasbaran forests - a case study

 

Dear Editor of Forests;

 

 We deeply appreciate the second round of the reviewers’ comments and suggestions on the manuscript. Our manuscript titled "Fuelwood harvest and no harvest effects on forest composition, structure, and diversity of Arasbaran forests" with manuscript ID forests-1393995 was edited and improved based on these invaluable comments. The reviewer comments were address both specifically as suggested, and, in other cases, broadly throughout the manuscript. Our detailed response and revisions are explained below. In the revised manuscript, we used highlighting to indicate which reviewer indicated the change. Also, the whole text was checked and edited for English grammar by our native, English speaking co-author.

 

We deeply appreciate for the invaluable time and comments from the reviewers.

We look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely yours,

Corresponding authors

 

Reviewer’s comments and authors’ responses are as follows:

 

Reviewer #4

• Without more detail discussion of influence of altitude, the paper is not possible to publish. There is no data for decision between reason of classification plots in left- and right-part in the figure (altitude / management or a combination of both ones). See newly classified data in the supplementary file.

 

• We added more explanation and clarity to altitude in the study design in the methods (L173-179) and discussion (L406-428), noting that altitude could explain these trends (including that preliminary cluster analysis showed division that could be explained by harvesting, elevation, or both) and that further research is needed. We also carefully reviewed the manuscript and revised throughout to provide tentative language when presenting results, clarify that this is a case study (not a replicated design) (including adding “case study” to the title), and that inference is limited without follow-up studies.

 

• There is a concern about this statement "We assumed minor differences in composition and growth between the two watersheds and elevations based on personal observation and experience in this forest type."

 

• In our study we observed the main species (Quercus, Carpinus, Acer, and Viburnum) at both altitudes with different density, similar to another Iranian study Safari et al. (2020) and Safari et al. (2019) (who found that species richness was not significantly different across altitudes similar to our study).

Safari, M.; Sefidi, K.; Alijanpour, A.; Elahian, M.R. Evaluation of altitude effects on the spatial structure of Caucasian oak (Quercus macranthera) stands in Arasbaran protected forests, Northwest of Iran. Forestry Ideas 2019, 25, 227-236.

Safari, M.; Omid, N.; Sefidi, K.; Abhasht, S.; Elahian, M.R. Influence of Elevation on Tree Species Biodiversity Indicators in Arasbaran Forest. Journal of Environmental Science Studies 2020, 5, 2801-2806.

 

• According to the comment to Include info about limits (and optima) of altitudinal distributions of the main species.

 

• The limit of altitudinal distributions of the main species was added on the page 2 and paragraph 2 line 72-74, line 81-82, and line 89-90.

 

• Divide woody species in the groups of trees and shrubs.

 

• Based on this comment, we described woody species as tree and shrub, added on page 6 line 220-225. Some of species (Carpinus orientalis, Quercus macranthera. Acer campestre, Pyrus syriaca, Sorbus aucuparia, Prunus avium, Malus orientalis, Mespilus germanica, Sorbus graeca, and Acer monspessulanum) had tree form and some other (Viburnum lantana, Cornus sanguinea, Prunus spinosa, Lonicera iberica, Crataegus orientalis, Euonymus latifolius, Juniperus excelsa, Berberis vulgaris, Cotoneaster hissaria, Ribes biebersteinii, and Rosa canina) had shrub form.

 

Reviewer # 6

 

The authors have corrected and improved the quality of the article, corrected the ambiguities, but the main problem remains, which the authors cannot correct - the lack of novelty in the article. The research, according to well-known methodologies, was conducted in a new forest, therefore old and well-known trends was obtained. To my opinion the novelty is very local.

Response: We appreciate for this comment. While this case study provides some baseline data, it is the first of many more studies that will be necessary to understand stand dynamics and management of the understudied Arasbaran forests. In recent years, the strategic plans of forest management in Iran and also in the Arasbaran forests have emphasized the importance of providing fossil fuels and clean energies such as solar panels to replace fuelwood and meet the needs of villagers. Based on our knowledge, the effects of switching from fuelwood to another energy source have not been studied on forest composition, diversity, and structure in Iran and especially in the Arasbaran forests. For this reason, the results of this research are the first steps in establishing baseline data on harvest effects on the scarce forest cover in Iran.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 5 Report

Dear Authors,

After reviewing the improved version of the article, I note that you have greatly improved the previous version of the manuscript entitled "How does the replacement of fuelwood with fossil fuels affect forest composition, structure, and diversity of Arasbaran forests?" with the manuscript ID forests-1393995.

Based on the reviewers' comments and their suggestions for corrections, many improvements were made and the title was changed to read "Fuelwood harvest and no harvest effects on forest composition, structure, and diversity of Arasbaran forests".

As a reviewer, I agree with the corrections and improvements. A minor technical correction may be required before publication.

Reviewer #5

Author Response

Cover letter for Manuscript ID: forests-1393995

 

Edited Title: Fuelwood harvest and no harvest effects on forest composition, structure, and diversity of Arasbaran forests - a case study

 

Dear Editor of Forests;

 

 We deeply appreciate the second round of the reviewers’ comments and suggestions on the manuscript. Our manuscript titled "Fuelwood harvest and no harvest effects on forest composition, structure, and diversity of Arasbaran forests" with manuscript ID forests-1393995 was edited and improved based on these invaluable comments. The reviewer comments were address both specifically as suggested, and, in other cases, broadly throughout the manuscript. Our detailed response and revisions are explained below. In the revised manuscript, we used highlighting to indicate which reviewer indicated the change. Also, the whole text was checked and edited for English grammar by our native, English speaking co-author.

 

We deeply appreciate for the invaluable time and comments from the reviewers.

We look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely yours,

Corresponding authors

 

Reviewer’s comments and authors’ responses are as follows:

 

Reviewer #4

• Without more detail discussion of influence of altitude, the paper is not possible to publish. There is no data for decision between reason of classification plots in left- and right-part in the figure (altitude / management or a combination of both ones). See newly classified data in the supplementary file.

 

• We added more explanation and clarity to altitude in the study design in the methods (L173-179) and discussion (L406-428), noting that altitude could explain these trends (including that preliminary cluster analysis showed division that could be explained by harvesting, elevation, or both) and that further research is needed. We also carefully reviewed the manuscript and revised throughout to provide tentative language when presenting results, clarify that this is a case study (not a replicated design) (including adding “case study” to the title), and that inference is limited without follow-up studies.

 

• There is a concern about this statement "We assumed minor differences in composition and growth between the two watersheds and elevations based on personal observation and experience in this forest type."

 

• In our study we observed the main species (Quercus, Carpinus, Acer, and Viburnum) at both altitudes with different density, similar to another Iranian study Safari et al. (2020) and Safari et al. (2019) (who found that species richness was not significantly different across altitudes similar to our study).

Safari, M.; Sefidi, K.; Alijanpour, A.; Elahian, M.R. Evaluation of altitude effects on the spatial structure of Caucasian oak (Quercus macranthera) stands in Arasbaran protected forests, Northwest of Iran. Forestry Ideas 2019, 25, 227-236.

Safari, M.; Omid, N.; Sefidi, K.; Abhasht, S.; Elahian, M.R. Influence of Elevation on Tree Species Biodiversity Indicators in Arasbaran Forest. Journal of Environmental Science Studies 2020, 5, 2801-2806.

 

• According to the comment to Include info about limits (and optima) of altitudinal distributions of the main species.

 

• The limit of altitudinal distributions of the main species was added on the page 2 and paragraph 2 line 72-74, line 81-82, and line 89-90.

 

• Divide woody species in the groups of trees and shrubs.

 

• Based on this comment, we described woody species as tree and shrub, added on page 6 line 220-225. Some of species (Carpinus orientalis, Quercus macranthera. Acer campestre, Pyrus syriaca, Sorbus aucuparia, Prunus avium, Malus orientalis, Mespilus germanica, Sorbus graeca, and Acer monspessulanum) had tree form and some other (Viburnum lantana, Cornus sanguinea, Prunus spinosa, Lonicera iberica, Crataegus orientalis, Euonymus latifolius, Juniperus excelsa, Berberis vulgaris, Cotoneaster hissaria, Ribes biebersteinii, and Rosa canina) had shrub form.

 

Reviewer # 6

 

The authors have corrected and improved the quality of the article, corrected the ambiguities, but the main problem remains, which the authors cannot correct - the lack of novelty in the article. The research, according to well-known methodologies, was conducted in a new forest, therefore old and well-known trends was obtained. To my opinion the novelty is very local.

Response: We appreciate for this comment. While this case study provides some baseline data, it is the first of many more studies that will be necessary to understand stand dynamics and management of the understudied Arasbaran forests. In recent years, the strategic plans of forest management in Iran and also in the Arasbaran forests have emphasized the importance of providing fossil fuels and clean energies such as solar panels to replace fuelwood and meet the needs of villagers. Based on our knowledge, the effects of switching from fuelwood to another energy source have not been studied on forest composition, diversity, and structure in Iran and especially in the Arasbaran forests. For this reason, the results of this research are the first steps in establishing baseline data on harvest effects on the scarce forest cover in Iran.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 6 Report

The authors have corrected and improved the quality of the article, corrected the ambiguities, but the main problem remains, which the authors cannot correct - the lack of novelty in the article. The research, according to well-known methodologies, was conducted in a new forest, therefore old and well-known trends was obtained. To my opinion the novelty is very local.

 

 

Author Response

Cover letter for Manuscript ID: forests-1393995

 

Edited Title: Fuelwood harvest and no harvest effects on forest composition, structure, and diversity of Arasbaran forests - a case study

 

Dear Editor of Forests;

 

 We deeply appreciate the second round of the reviewers’ comments and suggestions on the manuscript. Our manuscript titled "Fuelwood harvest and no harvest effects on forest composition, structure, and diversity of Arasbaran forests" with manuscript ID forests-1393995 was edited and improved based on these invaluable comments. The reviewer comments were address both specifically as suggested, and, in other cases, broadly throughout the manuscript. Our detailed response and revisions are explained below. In the revised manuscript, we used highlighting to indicate which reviewer indicated the change. Also, the whole text was checked and edited for English grammar by our native, English speaking co-author.

 

We deeply appreciate for the invaluable time and comments from the reviewers.

We look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely yours,

Corresponding authors

 

Reviewer’s comments and authors’ responses are as follows:

 

Reviewer #4

• Without more detail discussion of influence of altitude, the paper is not possible to publish. There is no data for decision between reason of classification plots in left- and right-part in the figure (altitude / management or a combination of both ones). See newly classified data in the supplementary file.

 

• We added more explanation and clarity to altitude in the study design in the methods (L173-179) and discussion (L406-428), noting that altitude could explain these trends (including that preliminary cluster analysis showed division that could be explained by harvesting, elevation, or both) and that further research is needed. We also carefully reviewed the manuscript and revised throughout to provide tentative language when presenting results, clarify that this is a case study (not a replicated design) (including adding “case study” to the title), and that inference is limited without follow-up studies.

 

• There is a concern about this statement "We assumed minor differences in composition and growth between the two watersheds and elevations based on personal observation and experience in this forest type."

 

• In our study we observed the main species (Quercus, Carpinus, Acer, and Viburnum) at both altitudes with different density, similar to another Iranian study Safari et al. (2020) and Safari et al. (2019) (who found that species richness was not significantly different across altitudes similar to our study).

Safari, M.; Sefidi, K.; Alijanpour, A.; Elahian, M.R. Evaluation of altitude effects on the spatial structure of Caucasian oak (Quercus macranthera) stands in Arasbaran protected forests, Northwest of Iran. Forestry Ideas 2019, 25, 227-236.

Safari, M.; Omid, N.; Sefidi, K.; Abhasht, S.; Elahian, M.R. Influence of Elevation on Tree Species Biodiversity Indicators in Arasbaran Forest. Journal of Environmental Science Studies 2020, 5, 2801-2806.

 

• According to the comment to Include info about limits (and optima) of altitudinal distributions of the main species.

 

• The limit of altitudinal distributions of the main species was added on the page 2 and paragraph 2 line 72-74, line 81-82, and line 89-90.

 

• Divide woody species in the groups of trees and shrubs.

 

• Based on this comment, we described woody species as tree and shrub, added on page 6 line 220-225. Some of species (Carpinus orientalis, Quercus macranthera. Acer campestre, Pyrus syriaca, Sorbus aucuparia, Prunus avium, Malus orientalis, Mespilus germanica, Sorbus graeca, and Acer monspessulanum) had tree form and some other (Viburnum lantana, Cornus sanguinea, Prunus spinosa, Lonicera iberica, Crataegus orientalis, Euonymus latifolius, Juniperus excelsa, Berberis vulgaris, Cotoneaster hissaria, Ribes biebersteinii, and Rosa canina) had shrub form.

 

Reviewer # 6

 

The authors have corrected and improved the quality of the article, corrected the ambiguities, but the main problem remains, which the authors cannot correct - the lack of novelty in the article. The research, according to well-known methodologies, was conducted in a new forest, therefore old and well-known trends was obtained. To my opinion the novelty is very local.

Response: We appreciate for this comment. While this case study provides some baseline data, it is the first of many more studies that will be necessary to understand stand dynamics and management of the understudied Arasbaran forests. In recent years, the strategic plans of forest management in Iran and also in the Arasbaran forests have emphasized the importance of providing fossil fuels and clean energies such as solar panels to replace fuelwood and meet the needs of villagers. Based on our knowledge, the effects of switching from fuelwood to another energy source have not been studied on forest composition, diversity, and structure in Iran and especially in the Arasbaran forests. For this reason, the results of this research are the first steps in establishing baseline data on harvest effects on the scarce forest cover in Iran.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf